The thing is, what you just said there... this level of control is a very modern invention of the courts.
No, it is the idea that a person is entitled to everything that is new. The restrictions on access were invented by the universe, and the courts are merely recognizing that to dismiss the stupid argument that a person is positively entitled to his most transitory desire.
Government has been saying "no" to people since it was invented. This ain't a new thing.
Also, aren't you contradicting yourself? First you say we have no inherent right, and then you say if you want to have the right, then buy a farm?
You're really not very smart, are you.
Having no positive right to access does not mean that you do not have liberty.
I am free to go to Mars to access things Martian. I do not have the resources to do so. This lack does not define the universe as being in a state where it is violating my rights, for I have no positive right to have access to anything Martian.
If I was on Mars, I would have access to things Martian. Now my liberty is actually usable for something in that regards.
So if you want access, buy a farm. You cannot buy things
from a farm that the government has deemed illegal to sell -- the government has put those things beyond your reach by that method. But that does not impact your liberty. If you buy a farm you are at liberty to eat the products you produce. You just aren't necessarily at liberty to sell them.