One doesn’t need a “right” to commit crimes, so why would you say that not consenting to criminal law doesn’t give one the right to commit crimes? It’s a confusing argument because it introduces an irrelevant element to the topic. I think what’s missing here is the important reality that it is not “rights” that empower people. The thing that empowers people is power and the threat and use of violence to force others to observe and act according to what we imagine to be acceptable. The nature of the violence is not the same in this application. Sometimes it’s physical bodily threats, harm, and destruction. Sometimes it’s psychological violence like isolation, public humiliation, and censorship. Sometimes it’s revisionist, property damage, and sabotage. For example: we can’t beat a malicious usurer to death with our rights. We can, however, declare our rights to have been violated and then beat them to death with a stick.