On Nozick and the Essential Contradiction of the Idea of "Individual Rights"

Pic isn't really that related, but seems to be on the surface level.

What makes an individual if his rights are given by the state? Is this really radical individualism? Even it more individualist if there were no government at all and everyone would either have to live and fight, or cower and die? In this sense, isn't the idea of indivualism be completely contradictory to the notion of rights? How can people be individuals if their rights are given and ensured by an external force? Conversely, how can people have rights, if everyone are truly individual and uphold their own livelihood and future with nothing but their own power, which in the process may stop other people from being able to do the same?

Democracy and popular participation

Pic unrelated.

I was doing a bit of research on the media's portrayal of the 2010 Olympics and its surrounding issues from 2001 to 2010, I noticed that very strangely, people who live in a democratic society seems to have no bloody clue about how the system work, or even things that are happening that may drastically affect their lives or the kind of things and issues that are directly against their beliefs and ideal, but due to the general ignorance, no one is doing anything about.