And I don't rely on rights to defend liberty. I was just explaining them.
I don't rely on anything to defend liberty. People understand things best in different ways.
I don't depend on natural rights, natural law, the NAP, economic arguments, self ownership, moral symmetry, the Rule of Law, God, or the Constitution. I can make cases based on any of them however.
The discussion here is about rights, so strangely I tried to address the topic.
Rights are not a fantasy any more than De Morgan's theorem is a fantasy. Rights can be logically defined. You clearly think rights are irrelevant, but that's another argument. I think they are fundamentally relevant because violation of rights by definition causes conflict. They have real application. Humans will act in ways they feel morally right. They will act to protect life, liberty, and property when it comes down to it. You're sophistry will never change this fact.
Since they will do this the first question should be: If this is our nature, why do we (ie statists) assume it is wrong? Why should we not consider that since upholding rights will necessarily minimize conflicts that we should not ab initio toss out rights because we can conceive some potential scenario where rights might conflict? If we want to minimize conflict and maximize harmony then creating conflict from the get go just seems insane.
Your fantasy is that a system built on the violation of rights can ever protect them.