Why do you beleave you have a right to anything others make using their own resources.
Why wouldn't you?
Let's look at real property law: if you claim to own a parcel of land, and no one disputes your claim, then while you certainly have possession of it, we don't really know that you own it because we aren't putting your claim to the test. It's like if I claimed to own the M78 nebula; I can say what I want, but no one would care. When there is a dispute, it boils down to force. If you can defend your parcel from a trespasser, you do own it. If not, then the trespasser owns it (and is now in a superior position to make such claims, being able to repel you). And since in practice there's always someone out there who is stronger than you, everyone who is on their own is in a precarious situation. Eventually the idea of an alliance comes about: you and your neighbor will ally to repel trespassers against your parcel. But why would your neighbor do this? Could be altruism, but probably in exchange for your assistance defending his parcel. The trespassers form alliances and the owners form alliances, and they all create various rules under which the alliance will operate.
For example, in the US, we have all agreed that the state has the right to tax property. (Not all places may do this, but this is a valid state power) If you're unable to pay, the state may seize your property to cover the payment. If you resist with force, you're considered the trespasser, few if any members of the alliance help you, and are subdued or maybe even killed. OTOH if you can raise enough of an alliance to help you, you could perhaps win, and change the rules to better suit yourself.
It's all artificial and grounded in consensus. Copyright is no different, except that it was created recently enough that there is no argument about its artificiality.
So no one seems to be arguing that you can be forced to create works if you don't want to, and no one seems to be arguing that if you have created a work, that you must share it with others. But if you have created and shared a work, you no longer have any ability to personally defend it from others. How could you? People have the inherent ability to reproduce the work and publish it themselves, once they have become aware of it. The only way to get them not to is to convince them to respect your wishes. And no one is likely to do that except out of altruism, or more likely, because there's something in it for them; something in it for them that is better than ignoring you and doing what they want right away.
Copyright attempts to be a system where the public will enjoy a greater benefit if they respect it than if they don't. If this stops holding true, why would it be respected? And even if it is true, why shouldn't it be reformed somewhat to make the benefit for the public the greatest possible benefit overall? Why should they settle for less? And these benefits for the public are not only in incentivizing the creation and publication of works which otherwise would not be created and published, but also in having as few (or no) restrictions on what the public can do, as rapidly as possible, if not immediately.
I hope you can put the rest together from there.