> I appreciate your willingness to elaborate on your points in detail. And that you focus on asking questions rather than proselytizing.

Likewise =)

> There are a few distinctions that I don't think your analogy captures. It would be an apt analogy if 1) slaves got a chance to vote out their master at reasonable intervals and 2) you have the ability to go to different plantations.

I don't think it would matter to a slave being whipped on a plantation that the person doing the whipping was elected by a narrow majority of his fellow slaves. Nor would it matter that he could leave to another plantation with a different master whose whip stings just the same. Slaves who elect their masters are still slaves, are they not? Only people without masters are free.

If you would allow me to proselytize a little, how would you know you are free? Is there a test? I think there is. It's the same test you'd use to tell if you are being raped or having sex. Does your consent matter? Will revoking your consent be respected by other parties involved? If you're having sex with someone whom you yourself chose, and you suddenly and vocally revoke your consent (ie. say "stop"), will they stop? or will they use violence to force you to continue? If they choose the latter option, in that moment they have, in a very literal sense, become your master and you their slave. I think the same test can be applied to any human relationship, interaction or form of cooperation, would you agree? If not, which relationships does this test not apply to? Why not?

> You could go to another society if they are willing to have you. But then you'll be governed by their rules.

Yes indeed, you could move to a society which practices child cannibalism if you are willing to be governed by their rules. I'm asking whether you think there should be limits on the kinds of rules that people can enforce on each other with an involuntary agreement. If there aren't, then is all that's stopping us from reinstating slavery or organizing a holocaust a democratic majority? I also think telling someone whose rights your violating "well, you can always move somewhere else" doesn't hold any water. People have rights where they are.

> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

These are the axioms I'm starting from. If we're all created equal, and we are all entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (in that order), does everything else not follow? You'll also note that "a baseline quality of life" is not present in this list.

> Assume you're on your condo balcony on the 20th floor but trip and fall ... There's really only two possibilities if you believe in the sanctity of personal property rights: 1) you ignore your neighbors commands and walk yourself back to safety, meaning you are immoral or 2) You let go and plunge to your moral death.

I agree wholeheartedly. I also think each individual has a right to make this choice for themselves. Many people would prefer to starve than beg. Many others have chosen to commit suicide rather than burden their families with their care. Whichever moral code you live by, and whichever ways you are willing to bend or break it in dire circumstances; these are deeply personal choices. In regards to the legal aspects of your example, there are several layers of due process that are in place exactly to prevent punitive action for reasonable violations of the law as-written. Namely policing discretion, prosecutorial discretion and trial by jury. These are clearly imperfect, but I don't see them convicting the trespasser in your example.

> At a certain point, we no longer have the bandwidth to make all the decisions necessary for a completely individual decisions to truly be cooperative.

I'm not sure that's true - some of the most complex things we do and build are overwhelmingly voluntary and cooperative in nature. The tens of thousands of people collaborating at Airbus to build an A380 are cooperating splendidly without being forced to, as are the employees of every major company which has contributed so much to the advancements in our quality of life.

> I also don't think I'd agree on your assumption that safety and flourishing are zero sum;

I think you misread what I wrote:

> And a confederacy of individuals does not equate to freedom, safety and flourishing being zero-sum.

However I might say that flourishing, based on the hierarchical nature of our social psychology, might be zero-sum. Only so many people can be at the top of the social pyramid, regardless of wealth. Most of everyone else seems to be wired to derive misery from the fact they do not occupy such a place. It does seem possible to overcome these instincts with practice however.

> I think the libertarian principles are romantic notions that fits well under the Jeffersonian ideal of a yeoman farmer, but largely incompatible with the complexity of modernity. To that extent, I'm not 100% convinced that going to the extreme would increase flourishing writ large.

I agree! The Jeffersonian homestead is the perfect example of functional liberty. I was going to cite it in my last post. Don't you think it could have been maintained with the political will and/or stronger constitutional protection? The US may not have become the global superpower it is today, but I don't see that as all together terrible, given all the awful things we have done to people in order to achieve and maintain this status.