Addressing your reply in a rather slipshod manner, let me begin with a quote from it: "If instead that person was taught from a young age why free will is important and that respecting each others freedom and liberty is the only way to ensure our own perhaps we could change some minds."

Wouldn't that be great? It almost sounds like 'the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave'; that is to say, you're describing a system that teaches children from a young age that individuals have inalienable rights. Accordingly, public schools teach children that they have rights (besides being inalienable) also have the guaranteed protection of law. The only difference in the society that you propose is that these we wouldn't teach these children that their rights had any legal protection.

Obviously, I can't and wouldn't say that our punitive legal system has succeeded in eliminating any crime. On the contrary, it invents crime where none exists, and frequently promotes the crimes it has established; ex: police quotas. I'm simply saying that the society you envision amounts more or less to necessarily teaching children (lest we make them naive) that some people will refuse to recognize their rights, and possibly kill them. If you can imagine how to offer them some sense of safety and protection besides a legal system of some kind, I'm all ears. To answer your question, "what protection is it [the law] offering?" from within this framework, I reply that what I called 'the guaranteed protection of law' is an illusion for children that may or may not prove useful. Although it's certainly a useful one for the committed 'legalist.'

Moving on:

"That's a massive stretch," you replied, but it's a stretch that I read from your original post. I will quote the passage again:

"This raises the question of what governments actually do when they create these 'laws' to give you 'rights.' Well that in itself is a logical fallacy, why would I need someone to give me permission to do what I am already able to do and aware enough to decide for myself?"

If we don't accept the massive stretch you introduced, then we forget about people who may lack capacity or awareness. The execution of mentally-disabled persons counts as just one example of the legal system addressing a demographic which some may reasonably consider lacking that capacity or awareness which you had originally assigned to yourself, and implicitly (one hopes), to the rest of humanity.

Of course, in situations concerning the execution of the mentally disabled, we're still talking law in terms of punishment. I don't intend to re-frame the legal system away from its obvious nature here. I had only intended to point out the underlying assumptions of your argument, while at the same time accepting them for the sake of making the point I thought more important to emphasize.

Next:

You wrote, "I'm saying your right to exist shouldn't be trusted to a 'law.' We all have a right to exist and pretending like some government gave us that right is a joke." Let me now reaffirm that rights precede laws. However, from the perspective of the legalist, these rights would thus produce the laws which protect them. Perhaps my legalists are your slaves, except I wouldn't go so far as to say so, due simply to my previous sentence's conceit of the hypothetical legalist. Someone who believes, however, that rights arise from law would fit your description perfectly.

Finally, I agree with the thrust of your final paragraph. I would even say I agree with it entirely, except that I feel the need to emphasize that the perspective I have offered has not been my own, but rather one invented purely for the purpose of discourse. In fact, I pretty much agree with you in spirit, if you couldn't tell already: I seek only to refine the practice and the rhetoric; or, as we might say otherwise, to conceptualize a society which has the protection of rights in the absence of a punitive legal system, and to create more compelling arguments for the establishment of that society.