In modern times, we often talk of “rights” as those things, tangible or intangible, which everyone needs and which, just by common decency, everyone should have.
When the founding fathers wrote of our inalienable rights, however, they were referring not to things, or needs, but to those *freedoms* that everyone must have in order to live their lives as they see fit, free from encroachment by others. They saw each man as sovereign, with sovereignty over his own life.
We have long grown used to the idea of the federal government taxing the well-off in order to provide for the needs of the less well-off. This egalitarian concept, noble and benevolent as it sounds, would have been seen by both Franklin and Jefferson as a *violation* of that sovereign right of each man to keep and enjoy as he sees fit the fruits of his own labor. That any man could be said to have a “right” to have his personal needs met at another man’s expense through the confiscation of a portion of that man's property (i.e., his income) would have been seen by the founding fathers as a very clear case of encroachment, and as such would have been alien and antithetical to their understanding of individual rights.
Which shows how thoughts on individual rights have changed over time - Jefferson and Franklin would no doubt have agreed that it was the responsibility of the individual to ensure that his actions and inactions (and those of his subordinates be they slave or free) did nothing to knowingly harm others. However, history has shown that when individual morality is replaced by group-think and profit-at-all-costs 'morality', then there are no curbs on what harm can and will be done to others.
While the Founding Fathers would be horrified at income tax and government mandated universal health care, they would also be appalled by adventurism overseas, corporations with the rights of people (and none of the morality) and the fact that many individuals, through no fault of their own, have no way to support themselves and their families and no opportunity to improve their situation while others who have amassed fortunes not only do nothing to help, but actively work to deny them opportunity to help themselves.
I suspect Franklin would be more understanding of government stepping in to help ameliorate these problems - he invented the idea of the 'free lending library' after all.
