If I endow my heirs with whatever I wish after my death, it should be sacrosanct. It shouldn't even be taxed, since it was taxed when earned. Endowments to worthy causes or unworthy causes for that matter are none of the government's business. All private transactions of money between private individuals should be held superior to any government granted privilege and particularly especially if the government privilege is granted through bribery.

I am ready to just live without government. I am not sure that it benefits me much at all.

The government doesnt protect my property, in fact it takes it away regularly.

The government doesnt protect my rights, in fact it substitutes others' rights over mine routinely.

The government says I have free speech , unless I speak out against the government (Snowden), in which case all bets are off.

The only privacy I have is to never let anyone know what I am thinking or doing. Otherwise, the NSA uses its powers to track me for its own nefarious purposes.

The government says they protect me from terrorists, but it wants to take away my ability to protect myself (guns).

The government says it protects our country from external invasion, but in fact no other country could take over the USA if there was no government that it could first take over and then use it to conquer the individuals.

Few people would argue that a man owns his own body, and would consider it a "natural" right of ownership. It is one of those ideas that is patently obvious, like "the sky is blue," and for which we do not have to show WHO created this right in order to hold it dear.
By extension, does a man then own the fruits of his body's labor? Obviously governments believe they have the right to confiscate wealth, so the answer would be "no," coming from people in power.
What made America unique is that our founders were of the same mind as John Locke, who wrote in his “Second Treatise on Government:” “The great and chief end therefore, of men united into commonwealths, and putting themselves under government, is the preservation of their property.”
So in answer to your question, yes, natural (endowed) rights trump state-created laws, but the trouble is defining which rights are natural and which are necessary parts of a social contract.

Bravo.

To question the king is to be a racist.
Jimmy Carter once said as much about His Highendness in the lit up nighttime Rainbow House.

ABSOLUTELY

Is this a trick question? Endowed rights have primacy. "Governments are instituted among men to guarantee those rights." Government granted privileges are not rights, and are unconstitutional violations of the equal protection clause.

Consent to be governed waives endowed rights, because one becomes subject to and object of the servant government.

George will explain it for you - - -
. . .
“ It may be laid down, as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every citizen who enjoys the protection of a free government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America (with a few legal and official exceptions) from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls, provided with uniform Arms, and so far accustomed to the use of them, that the Total strength of the Country might be called forth at Short Notice on any very interesting Emergency.”
- - - George Washington; "Sentiments on a Peace Establishment" in a letter to Alexander Hamilton (2 May 1783); published in The Writings of George Washington (1938), edited by John C. Fitzpatrick, Vol. 26, p. 289.

[... Every citizen ... owes a portion of his property ... and services in defense ... in the militia ... from 18 to 50 years of age... ]

Make no mistake!
• The Declaration says : YOU have an endowed right to life.
• But citizens have no inalienable (endowed) right to life.
• The Declaration says : YOU have an endowed right to natural and personal liberty.
• But citizens have only civil and political liberty.
• The Declaration says : YOU have an endowed right to absolutely own private property (upon which you can pursue happiness without permission of a superior).
• But citizens have no private property, absolutely owned... a portion can be claimed by the government.

If you've consented to be a citizen, you have NO ENDOWED RIGHTS.
Zip. Nada. Bumpkiss. Empty Set. Nought.
Any presumption to the contrary is an error not supported by law nor court ruling.

The government can order you to train, fight, and die, on command.
The government can take a portion of your property -or wages - or whatever - as it sees fit.
All authorized by your consent to be a CITIZEN (state or U.S.).
(The USCON complies with this, too. People have rights and powers. Citizens have privileges and immunities. And they’re mutually exclusive.)
. . . . . . . . . .
The Supreme Court has held, in Butler v. Perry, 240 U.S. 328 (1916), that the Thirteenth Amendment does not prohibit "enforcement of those duties which individuals owe to the state, such as services in the army, MILITIA, on the jury, etc." In Selective Draft Law Cases, 245 U.S. 366 (1918), the Supreme Court ruled that the military draft was not "involuntary servitude".

Since the militia only include male CITIZENS, and not all people (who apparently retain their rights), citizenship must be voluntary. But once one volunteers, those civic duties become mandatory.

Now that we know it is our consent to be citizens that waives our right to life and liberty, it is futile to argue over the loss of other inconsequential rights.

Complaining about consent already given is as useful as a volunteer on a suicide mission, blurting out "They want me to do WHAT?! - That could get me KILLED!"
. . . . . . . . . .
Of course, non-citizen American nationals / sovereigns are not obligated, and retain their endowment.

Ambrose Bierce made a joking reference to it:
.................................................. ...............
ALIEN, n. An American sovereign in his probationary state.
- - - - “The Devil’s Dictionary” (1906), by Ambrose Bierce
(copies can be downloaded from http://gutenberg.org)
.................................................. ...............
Today's American has not been informed of his consent that surrendered his sovereignty and imposed "voluntary servitude" upon him. But 100 years ago, Americans knew they were sovereigns - otherwise no one would get the joke.

With regard to licenses to "do" stuff, you should find that they are limited to "citizens" and "residents." There are no licensing requirements for non-citizen inhabitants domiciled within the united States of America. They have natural rights, natural and personal liberty. It's not a trespass for them to exercise those rights and liberties.

The endowment by one's Creator establishes the precedent in American law that the GOVERNMENT is not the source of those rights it was instituted to secure...

" Personal liberty, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or natural Rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most sacred and valuable Rights, as sacred as the Right to private property...and is regarded as inalienable."
- - - 16 Corpus Juris Secundum, Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987.

In this excerpt we see that sacred rights encompass natural rights, personal liberty, and the right to private property (i.e., absolutely owned by an individual).

NATURAL RIGHTS - ... are the rights of life, LIBERTY, privacy, and good reputation.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed., p. 1324

This is why the republican form of government is the best form on earth... no democratic majority can vote away endowed rights and liberties.

Endowed rights? What is that? Endowed by whom? If you mean inalienable rights grounded in the nature of the type of beings we are then we are on the same page.
Rights inherent in reality always trump rights by fiat. Reality trumps fiat proclamations every time.

"People who have rights need no permission. People who need permission have no rights."
Do privileges by their nature attempt to deny people their natural rights?

Does it work like this: We all have a right to get around but not in away that puts other people at risk. So the gov't grants privileges to drive vehicles or fly planes to those who can use them safely.

My simplistic way of thinking about it is gov't takes away freedom to do something dangerous to maximize liberty. I don't like the idea of privileges because it implies that the burden is on the individual to show the state should not interfere with his life. I like stating it that the gov't is curtailing your freedom, which puts the burden on the state to show it's justified.

It would probably do me good to read more non-fiction philosophy b/c I'm sure there are many frameworks for this idea that I've come up with from reading things here and there.

Not according to American law - - -
. . .
"What I do say is that no man is good enough to govern another man without that other's consent. I say this is the leading principle, the sheet-anchor of American republicanism. Our Declaration of Independence says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
- - - Abraham Lincoln, Speech at Peoria, Illinois (1854)
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Abraham_...

As Lincoln reminds us, under the republican form, promised by the USCON, instituted by the Declaration of Independence, NO MAN (nor American government) is good enough to govern you without your consent. Without your consent, all that government is authorized to do is secure endowed (sacred) rights (prosecute trespass; adjudicate disputes; defend against enemies, foreign or domestic).

You must learn HOW and WHEN you gave consent and decide if you wish to continue or withdraw that consent.

Until the current system is destroyed, you still have the freedom of choice.

Pursuant to the Declaration of Independence, government has two jobs:
▸ [1] secure (endowed) rights and
▸ [2] govern those who consent.

CAVEAT : consent waives job #1 !
. . .

Government granted privileges include, but are not limited to licenses (permissions), political liberty (voting, holding public office), and so on. All civil liberties are grants by government.

In contrast, endowed (natural) rights include, but are not limited to life (and all harmless actions in support thereof), to liberty (natural and personal), to absolutely own one's self, labor and property, and the right to defend those rights, liberties, and property from attack.

People who have rights need no permission. People who need permission have no rights.

If the king says the world is flat, does that make it so?

endowed rights are so because reality makes it so.

No matter how much a government espouses the world to be flat, it does not make it so.

What's an example of a gov't-granted privilege?

Endowed rights do not require that I surrender my sovereignty to what is supposed to be servant government.
Endowed rights are far superior.