[xorbie]

You responded to my questions, I wouldn't really say you answered them.

Your definition is erroneous and problematic for reasons I did mention.

1. It doesn't apply to all societies. A society with no conception of property apparently can't have free action whatsoever, which seems absurd. A society with certain conception of property (say one not including land) would also have a very different definition of freedom. From the questions you asked about ownership of land and resources, it seems your notion of freedom actually only applies within a society in which everything is privately owned, which makes it rather something of a tautalogy to say these are the only free societies, thus weakening that line of argument.

2. Situations in which something I do bothers someone else are problematic. If I grow plants that smell quite bad, that doesn't necessarily preclude you from doing what you like, but it certainly is invasive. Nearly everything we do affects others to some degree, and as soon as we begin to include body and mind along with other property, the actions of ours which do not "infringe on the rights of others to use their property as they want" are almost non-existent.

You also make no effort to give a rigorous understanding of "what I want". Does a crackhead "want" crack? Does he "want" to be clean?

I also still take issue with the tree/plant example. Why must my freedom be conditioned on the wants of my neighbor? If I already have a tree in my yard, and a neighbor moves in and demands I cut it down so that he can grow plants, it seems I am rather "unfree".