> Option 3 is to recognize that all societal freedoms exist within the construct of society.
I consider this an axiom of any discussion about liberties, rather than as an option to be separately considered. The only point of talking about "liberties" or "freedoms" is in the context of there being more than one person, because otherwise the discussion is irrelevant as it would all amount to the same regardless.
So I suppose the real option 3 is as follows: kill every other human except for yourself.
I'm not sure how you can say you take the non-aggression principle as axiomatic while also asking:
> How do you handle the fact that "the right to swing your fist as you please" and "the right to not get punched in the nose" are both legitimate freedoms?
The answer is simple: individuals do not have the sanctioned freedom to strike others due to the NAP. This feels so plainly obvious to me that i'm worried i'm misunderstanding your position.
Nowhere have I said anything about the non-aggression principle. With regard to egalitarianism, the exercise of determining which freedoms are subservient to other freedoms is left to the members of the society. While I would suggest that something like the non-aggression principle is a good starting point for such a discussion, it is orthogonal to the idea of classism vs. egalitarianism as the two means of resolving the dilemma of contradictory freedoms.
I consider this an axiom of any discussion about liberties, rather than as an option to be separately considered. The only point of talking about "liberties" or "freedoms" is in the context of there being more than one person, because otherwise the discussion is irrelevant as it would all amount to the same regardless.
So I suppose the real option 3 is as follows: kill every other human except for yourself.