Affirmative Defenses -- would the one about "license" apply if the alleged activity is not wrong and needs no permission but is the simple and harmless exercise of a basic inherent right? or only if the alleged activity involved the exercise of a privilege which the plaintiff gave to the defendant?

Is there a better Affirmative Defense (than "License") or a more pertinent official phrase for when all the allegation said the defendant did was something the defendant had a natural right to do anyway?

I'm really hoping someone can answer my question.

One begins in such cases with a motion to dismiss. If that motion fails, then one may allege in his or her affirmative defenses, "The matter charged is not a wrong this court has jurisdiction to rule upon," or such similar words as may apply to the particular facts of the case.

The License Game.

The following is my opinion, which I have validated through actual legal encounters that I call The Traffic Ticket Con.
(General Discussion->Praise & Thanks->Knowledge & Confidence) page 2.

Black's Law Dictionary has two key definitions for license:
1. Permission to do a thing, for without the license would be illegal. My example for this type would be the transportation of hazardous waste on the Public highways.
2. Permission by the State to conduct business (commerce) within their jurisdiction.

One of the Delegated Authorities that The People gave to government in the Constitution is... to Regulate Commerce.

Government can't Regulate the Right of Free People who exercise their Inherent Rights. So, the trick that they use is to convince the People to apply for licenses. Now they can regulate you, because the license becomes "Prema Facie Evidence" that you are engaged in commerce...therefore, your activity can be regulated by government.

It took me many years to solve that riddle. Again, I am just stating my opinion, for which I have come to the conclusion by testing the system and using analytical reasoning.

Keep Studying Dr. Graves course! It has helped me immensely!

To add to Jerome:

If you buy a car and register it, get plates, then you are asking for regulation, why?

You got the car via and exchange of consideration: something(money) for the car. You also got a Bill of Sale. Now you also got either a MSO or Cert. of Title. MSO new car, COT used car. Don't want to be regulated? O.K. don't register it, don't get any plates, and definitely don't get a license. Keep bill of sale in car, locate and company who will insure it, if not, get a bond. If you want to you can enroll in a driver ed. school and get a certificate saying your competent, so now who's to say since you don't have a D.L you're incompetent? License is permission, not competency. Never drive always travel. Where you driving 70 MPH? Yes. Here's your ticket. Where you traveling 79 MPH? Yes. Have a nice day!

When you voluntarily register it, it becomes state property and they put it in state commerce.
When you voluntarily register a new born, it becomes state property and they put in commerce. Can't complain when DHS comes to take their child out of the home. Child is ward of the state and parents(baby setters) are incompetent, so DHS removes it. It was all settled long time ago.
Ever heard someone say: I paid my last car/house payment so now they can't take it away from me? Ignorance is bliss!