"But it must be that person's choice to do so."
Well here's another of your unalloyed principles. But whereas in libertarian dreams, we inhabit a limitless landscape with endless resources in it, in fact we share the same space and need to deal with issues of scarcity.
You have individual choices, you have necessary restrictions on free choices and then you have democratic (or collective) choices. They compete for air.
So my trout farm is on a river downstream of your dirty factory. If you get to make a free choice to pour your toxic waste into the river, you harm my choice to sell my fishing service. The choices of individuals compete with one another. Society properly restricts your choices in the event we all depend on common resources like rivers and air.
Another example. The power of eminent domain is necessary if you wish to live in a country with straight freeways. It is absolutely legitimate for a society to make a democratic choice in favour of a common good.
Oddly enough, wealth is not simply the product of work - as a Wave investor, you should know this! It is the product of demand and scarcity. I suspect the American principle of isolate individualism was possible because it was nurtured in a landscape that seemed almost limitless. But as with cyberspace, in the end it seems we tread on one another's toes. At that point, we need to work out how to live together. Living together relies upon a framework to make decisions amongst ourselves. The law is a consequence of that. As are property rights.
Of course, you won't ever get perfect government. But some government is necessary. We get to argue about how much.
| 
