“Every device employed to bolster individual freedom must have as its chief purpose the impairment of the absoluteness of power. The indications are that such an impairment is brought about not by strengthening the individual and pitting him against the possessors of power, but by distributing and diversifying power and pitting one category or unit of power against the other. Where power is one, the defeated individual, however strong and resourceful, can have no refuge and no recourse.”

Researching definitions of personal sovereignty, inalienable rights, liberty and individual freedom, no where in the concepts of such does possessing power show up. I'v seen no historical evidence of the quotes focus leading to or keeping freedom. In a history of human nature, "power" is most often present — BUT — that is a whole other topic outside the above quote.

Mike's distinction not withstanding, our 'rights' are inherent, and our 'powers' are limited only by our abilities.  Rightful power would be power exercised in accord with our rights.

When chartering a republican form of government, the 'powers' of the government come from the rights of the people who have chartered it.  Since power is prone to abuse when the ability to exercise power contrary to the 'rights' to it is left unopposed, a system of checks and balances is incorporated so that power is distributed across categories and classes.  Without that, the possession of power becomes centralized and unchecked; thus the maxim, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.