Joe suddenly has a brief flash of light:
>I want to see everyone have all the freedom they can have without
>interfering in the same freedoms of others,
There's hope for you yet, Joe. You've just stated the libertarian philosophy. Unfortunately, the next clause shows that you still don't quite get it:
>and where freedoms
>come into conflict with each other, the conflicts should be resolved
>by means of equal and proportional compromise.
As I've explained to den Otter, one person's freedom, properly understood, cannot conflict with another's. As someone long ago observed (was it Mencken?, not sure), my freedom to swing my fist ends in front of your nose.
The seemingly innocent assumption of a conflict of rights is, I think, the one baleful loophole which has made superficially credible all the age-old bilge purporting to justify the State. This loophole needs to be closed, boarded over and nailed permanently shut.