"I acknowledge the concept, I know that today it's called the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Wrong."
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights doesn't really address natural rights, at least not in full. Freedom from fear, for instance, isn't feasible (although I don't think the intent was freedom from all fear). Nor is freedom from want, at least not unless there is another component obligating to provide the means that allows one to experience freedom from want without providing anything in return.
"and I understand that absent a government to enforce your rights, you have none."
You prove yourself wrong in this next sentence. Thanks, you saved me the trouble:
"Where are the "natural rights" of Cubans and North Koreans? Of blacks when we had slavery? Obviously "natural rights" don't exist. Like "free market" it is an ideal to strive for. It's a name we hang on an idea."
Those natural rights were abrogated, through the actions of the governments you mention. In fact the biggest threat to natural rights are government. As you have so acutely pointed out.
"It does not match the definition of a "program", a government doesn't not have a "free market" program, but certainly a government creates an environment, which is more concise, and my point."
Yeah. I'm not sure how you could submit that a child trading marbles for hotwheels, or a Russian trading a fur hat for Levis, or a Somalian trading coal for Khat are examples of a government programs. but it si very easy to demonstrate that they took place within the context of a free market.
"The on of the points of a government IMO, is to create a stable economic environment."
Why? If you control the government, you want to create economic policy that benefits and protects you.