My stance: It's not typically necessary to break the symmetries between two things into two sepereate asymmetrical things unless one particular part of the symmetry is under inspection, in which case, considering the one part as packaged with the other part is unnecessary.
Sub-Debate: In light of this, why aren't the economic freedom supporters the same as the personal freedom supporters? Why does politics divide into right and left?
My stance: It's not purely a class issue. It's also an issue of ethnicity, faith, gender, and any other division in which society teaches one set of persons one set of things and another set of persons another set of things. If we are to unify former members of the left and the right towards agreement of anything, we must eliminate the dichotomy between economic activity and personal activity. With that in place, in order to restrict something that other people value, you must restrict something that you value, and in order to free something that you value, you must free something that other people value.
Sub-Sub-Debate: With this in mind, how many poeple do you think will actually choose tyranny over just government? Or, on the same token, anarchy over just government?
My stance: Both anarchy and tyranny are forms of irrational brute rule, since anarchy is rule of the strong in nature over the weak in nature, and tyranny is rule over the strong in politics over the weak in politics. Just government, on the other hand, is the rule of the just in society over the unjust in society.
Sub-Sub-Sub Debate: Given this, is it also necessary to illustrate a false dichotomy in nature and politics, IE are they both abstractions of society in the opposite direction? Or are they fundamentally not only seperable, but necessarily seperated?
My stance: Society is as much formed by natural elements and political elements as it is formed by personal elements and economic elements. Society is an abstraction that represents a unified whole.
Finally, the Sub-Sub-Sub-Sub Debate: Does society have any claim over the natural/political/personal/economic in any sense? Or not?
My stance: It does not, because that would imply a claim of society over the individual, since these are all fields involving individual freedom. However, this leads to a problem. Society is but a bunch of individuals all working together, or more or less, the abstraction as such. To give society a claim would either rely on things other than rights, which I can argue do not constitute a valid claim, or on rights, where it leads to a stolen concept, as it would violate individual rights and yet hold that society has rights which are inviolable. The former view simply is not justified, whereas the latter view is specifically a logical fallacy. Thus, individuals have rights, which are based off of nature and are held as a political necessity to living.