"There's a lot to unpack here."

Yes there is; and it's the tip of the iceberg.

"First of all, "healthy people do not get diseases" is just flat out wrong, I don't know how you could support such a claim."

Fair enough! I concede that that was wrong, people do get diseases, and previously they might have been healthy, so as a statement standing by itself, evaluated as a truth or a claim by itself, it is definitely wrong.

Agreed.

Although, I would suggest that looking at it in context would provide a greater degree of what it was attempting to communicate, what I was trying to say.

But I agree that by itself, as a statement, claim and/or truth, it's wrong. Concur.

"Second, do you accept the inevitability of death in all things, meaning you take zero precautions to protect your own life in any and all situations of your life? You never wear a seatbelt, never go to a doctor, wouldn't stay clear of a person if you knew they had a very contagious disease, ...?"

Well, let's see. If I were driving, I would wear a seatbelt yes. And I have seen doctors in the past, that's true enough.

Would I stay clear of a person I knew had a contagious disease?

Well, I don't know.

Explain to me what you think a contagious disease is, if that contagious disease causes death or not (in other words, what am I risking), and what's the status of the person relative to my goals? In other words, am I getting to talk to Elon Musk? Might he give me a job? What's the risk and what are the rewards?

If I knew those things, then yes, I might be able to give you a hypothetical answer...

"If yes, I would be very surprised about your stoicism; otherwise it seems inconsistent."

I'm not as afraid of diseases as most people are. That is because I've done a ton of reading in many subjects (many many subjects!), and a ton of reading in medicine.

What scares most people in these areas -- doesn't have as much of an effect on me, because I know things that the average person does not.

"Lastly, do you really believe no person should ever be forced to do anything?"

Not by me. After a long time in meditation and deep introspection, I have realized that while there may be many people whose behaviors in various areas I don't like, don't appreciate -- that I'd rather work on my own toleration of them -- which is a quality which can be changed (acceptance or inacceptance of the behavior of what others do or don't do is a mental state -- it exists in your mind. If you can change your mind, you can rise above this... that is my goal for myself...)

"So, for example, a mother should not be forced to feed her child"

I am not prohibited from attempting to persuade, multiple times if need be, to this mother that feeding her child is a good idea, and socially beneficial.

Beyond persuasion, I will not use force. If it's my child, perhaps that's different, but if it's my child, why am I not feeding it (thus removing the obligation for the mother to be the sole party responsible). As I don't have children, I couldn't answer this question as applies to me, but all I can tell you is that polite repeated persuasion is permissible (to be used by me) -- but the use of force is not.

", or people should not be prevented from murdering other people? "

Again, same argument.

I can persuade, I can attempt to persuade them that what they are doing / have did (is/was) wrong, perhaps multiple times on muliple ocassions, maybe many times over, but I will not be the party using force against them.

"If not, your argument that unlimited freedom is the most important value to preserve falls flat and we must start talking about the situations in which you would restrict someone's freedom."

It's an important value to preserve for me. I should point out that the value does not exist as "unlimited", as that's an absolute, an extreme.

It's an ideal (for me), but it's an ideal that is not nor could ever be accomplished by a human living on the earth.

I am after all, human.

The philosophers of old used to think about things in "ideal" terms... for me, with respect to freedom, the challenge/goal I have set for myself... the "ideal" -- is to give all others theirs, even if it interferes with other others' freedom.

I can persuade (or attempt to persuade) other people that what they are doing might be wrong... but I can never coerce them, I can never use force.

"(I won't even go into how I think this notion of "freedom" is very simplistic because it ignores how un-free we are fundamentally due to situations outside of our control, e.g. very poor people are de facto not very free.)"

The more you try to control the universe... the more the universe will control you.

Simple example:

Find a wall.

Push on the wall.

Note that the wall pushes back at your hand with precisely the exact equal-and-opposite force that you apply to it. Precisely.

Now, take your hand away from the wall. Look at it. Is it exercising any control, any control over your hand? Is it pushing against your hand?

All objects/situations/people/places/things in the universe are like your hand with respect to the wall. If you do not attempt to control them -- you will not be controlled.

But if you do... expect and accept an equal-but-opposite force of control in precisely the same amount as you exert against the objects/situations/people/places/things that you are trying to control, by whatever means you are trying to control it.

My philosophy is that simple.

Newton's 3rd Law... applied to everything in the Universe that you or me or someone else would like to control...