I have an idea of what you are getting at with this debate, but the description and the title are far to vague. Can you please be more explicit?

I cannot work out what this debate is meant to be about ..............

If the government controlling a territory denies inhabitants basic natural rights, are the inhabitants justified to be parasitical to that government in an attempt to make up for that?

That is an interesting question. Do two wrongs make a right? In this case I'm not too sure. If a government doesn't inspire loyalty how can they demand it from their inhabitants when they show none as well?

Let's lessen the severity to a household. If a parent denies their child basic right, such as healthy food, safe living conditions....could the child be justified to steal money from the parent to get to a safer situation? I think so. But I'm hesitant to say it regarding a majority so I'm not sure why my discrepancy is there. I think my main point of contention is that I don't think anyone is really justified to be parasitical, provided they are capable they should always work towards bettering their situation. If the government has a choke hold on its inhabitants then work needs to be done to either bring that to light or change it. But simply saying the government denies me something so I'm going to be a drain on the government, doesn't seem like it will end the process the people are complaining about.