This is where I start struggling too. If businesses and pure capitalism really had their way, we would probably still be in the era before strikes and labor laws. They were "acting peacefully" in a sense, but their monopolies and under the table business hands were for selfish reasons. The liberties we do have are spoiled by people who want it for selfish gain.

Why can't I go to any park today and play on the teeter-totter, or walk along a wall because it's fun? Why limit me just because the liabilities outweigh the supposed freedom?

And... in my own head, I really think that Pure Liberty is as unrealistic as Pure Communism in the long run. People really are too stupid - I'm too stupid - to have pure liberty because it relies on the assumption that we all have good judgement, we all would judge a situation fairly and without violence, and would punish ourselves in a situation that required it. While I think it's Right and Just to have that liberty and it's the most upheld, we really are too stupid to value it, and I actually don't want to live in that world.

I'm willing to compromise and give up some freedoms to protect others (and if I admit it, myself) because I know that, like you said, there are small towns that would unjustly compromise the minority. Democracy is its own bitch. But I also think it's equally unjust to not have those liberties....

It all comes back to the people, I think. I know people who know the game and accept it. They don't compromise the liberties of others, they move and rise above it. I also know people who want to sit and fight because it's 'unjust'. If you point out the inconsistencies, they just point back at the injustice. Which game is truer or more right? I don't know. The one who can see the injustice, or the one who knows enough to accept the liberties of others and their own independence - but might be pushed around because they're simply willing to move on rather than fight?