No one’s rights gets to trump and/or erase another person’s rights - as individuals. Someone may say they have a right to swing their arms - but when the swinging of their arms ends up on my nose - then they can’t claim “privilege” because it’s “their right”.
If they are swinging their arms and you move into the space they are occupying intermittently, then you have violated their rights by taking up the space they needed to swing their arms.
Nice attempt to substitute “privelege” for “right”, BTW.
The concept that one’s rights trump others’ rights is inherently abridgement of their rights. When states and cities started with the smoking bans, they always couched it in terms of the rights of non-smokers, and never in terms of the property owners or smokers. The non-smokers’ rights were used to cancel the rights of even the people who owned the bar or restaurant to determine whether customers were allowed to smoke.
Now, you are here claiming an inviolable, portable smoke-free zone around yourself, no matter whether the smoker was in the space you decide to occupy first. The only way that logical equation balances is if they have NO rights - only you can have the rights you claim. They are only allowed the “privileges” you allow.
Which means you are considered in the exact same position from someone else’s perspective.
You cannot make a logical case that is balanced based on your assertion of having superior rights to anyone who asserts a right that “affects” you, regardless of circumstance.