Licensing fees don't go to the highways. Tolls go to the turnpikes... and a portion of registration goes to the Department of Safety - Division of Motor Vehicles with the other portion going to the municipality to offset road maintenance expenses. Exactly how the municpality expends them is a matter of locality.
So now they don't pay for the roads?
Not imaginary... not inherent. The destruction of my car represents the destruction of my labor... and thus a period of my life... but my car is not inherent to my life.
Can your car be destroyed? Yes. Is it still real, regardless of it's potential to be destroyed? Yes.
Ergo, your claim that just because a right can be violated, it does not actually exist, is false.
If H.sapiens are irrational... then how can logic be inherent to the human condition?
Logic is inherent in physical reality, not in the human condition.
People are granted rights all the time. Every time you enter a contract, new rights are created; others may be extinguished.
No, you are attempting to conflate "privileges" and "rights" into one term. They are two separate things.
As I've hounded on many of these threads, you're using a nomenclature that the world-at-large does not use. It would greatly facilitate discussion if you define what you're talking about when you say "right".
I'm not using any non-standard definition. You, on the other hand, are attempting (repeatedly) to conflate two separate things into one term. The only potential reason for that (aside from ignorance) is simply to be obstructive.
There is one actual right, as we've already discussed: self-ownership. All other rights are simply derivatives thereof. Anything that violates the self-ownership of another is a violation of his rights. Anything which does not, is not a violation of any right, no matter how much someone may dislike a given behavior.
The moment you attempt to use reason to argue against self-ownership, you have admitted that your opponent does, indeed, own himself. Else you would have no cause to use reason, and could just use force. The moment you elect to set aside reason and attempt to use force to oppose his self-ownership, you have chosen to make yourself a non-reasoning entity and, therefor, no longer a person. Once you choose to lower your status to that of an animal, he may violently oppose your attack just as he could violently oppose an attacking rabid dog, and not violate your rights (since you chose to give them up when you attacked him).
Self-defense (force in response to aggression) is justified, but the initiation of force is not.
By the way, this is a gross simplification. As I said before, I'm not going to teach Liberty 101 here. These are things which you should research on your own. So don't go trying to poke holes in that and whining about how I glossed over the details. That's the synopsis; go do the actual reading before complaining.
Joe
