I could roll jazz on this post all day. That's not a good thing, as I spend entirely too much time in the philosophy mode already...it won't be good jazz.

So far...

"That’s why I emphatically reject the idea that all of human social history thus far represents progress."

The idea that it does represent a linear march upward into the light of perfection is commonly known in hoity-toity circles as the Whig(1) theory of history. After Kuhn and Rothbard, I'm not even going to give that kind of blind approval to the history of the natural or formal sciences, let alone to a history as tumultuous and terrible as the history of political action. It just doesn't work that way.

"Rights are illusions that seem to be real only to the degree that others’ conceptions of them dovetail with one’s own, and they play along."

Cutting to the heart of the argument, I can only say that this misconstrues the significance of moral theory. Moral theory's practical value is its instruction to judgment as to the nature, good or evil, of a given course of action.

"Part of the ride was the continual feeding of that bubble mythology, which was, after all, the only thing the nascent political class (viz., politicians) could offer: the hollow promise of security."

Rebuttal: On natural law grounds Spooner demolished the moral, legal, ethical and historical justifications for the state. No Treason No. VI still remains the demolition of record of social contract theory.

"Two things, I think: the desire most humans have to see ourselves and be seen by others as a good person; and our social nature (of which the first reason is a part)."

It might surprise you, given the position I'm advocating, but neither has motivated me. I frankly don't give a damn what others think of me. I do what I have judged as the morally just thing as an end in itself. Then, as I've said in the past, I'm a freak.

"but it is one borne of the understanding that the concept is a fiction"

I stand by the conviction that this understanding is at best mistaken. A bunch I can only call Catallactic positivists, because their particular fixation transcends multiple schools of thought, largely view money as a social convention, and only dimly understand how and why money comes to embody the role it does. The concept of purchasing power, in their logical canons, is a fiction that people magically don't notice. This is really quite disturbing, considering what it naturally led to; technocratic tinkering with the money supply until we end up in the present mess.

More stuff...

As I see it, one flaw inherent in this discussion is the use of a single term, rights, to denote distinctive concepts. Rights has been used as the term to signify concepts which are not merely different, but also contradictory to each other e.g. "positive" and "negative" rights. Also is the problem of what metaphysical, ontological and epistemological givens are present underlying the construction of any ethical system.

Let us dispense with so-called "positive rights" straight away by virtue of the observation that it depends on an ontological absurdity and move on.

(1) - I believe it's David Hume who's responsible for that particular disaster...