In his book, Narveson argues that rights are a social construction which, though held by an individual, exist by virtue of conferring duties upon other individuals. In a manner of speaking, every right gives rise to a corresponding duty. Thus suppose that A has the right to do x. The appropriate starting point in discussing this question is the state of nature. In this state, a state of anarchy, there is no government.
Individuals are atomistic, and exist independently of each other.
For the sake of the argument's construction, every individual can provide for himself, and there are no social structures or dependent children. This question is not specific enough. Certainly he does. This, of course, illustrates the difference between negative and positive rights. In the example of the berries, the hungry individual has the right not to be prevented from eating the berries, a negative right.