There's a very widespread confusion over the meaning of inalienable.

The word does not mean "cannot be refused". It is trivially possible to refuse someone the right to life (kill them), liberty (imprison them), or happiness (torture them).

What cannot be done, however, is to transfer those rights to another individual.

Chattel or real property rights by contrast are inherently alienable. Your property (objects, land) can be denied you and given to someone else.

That said, the argument that inalienability makes a right somehow privileged (I have an an inalienable right to pain, for example, which I might be quite happy to shed) is a curious one, and there's a longer discussion in philosophy and the rights discourse over just what constitutes fundamental rights and why.

Definitions: "That cannot be transferred to another or others. Incapable of being alienated or transferred to another; that cannot or should not be transferred or given up."

<https://www.wordnik.com/words/inalienable>

Further to your point:

Rights only exist up until the point someone is willing to trample them.

Then you’ve got to be willing to fight for them.

At which point everyone’s rights go straight out the window.

In the context of the 18th-century document, the word was well understood to mean "not erased by human judgements nor actions". As in, shooting someone doesn't "alienate" their right to not be shot.

Also, that's not what "schizophrenic" means.