Well of course you can have less freedom under something you choose than under something imposed upon you.  I can sit around all day, doing nothing, and the government is doing nothing to restrict my freedom.  They&#x27;re not telling me to go anywhere or do anything.  They&#x27;re not restricting my freedom at all!  If I choose to go get a job, though, now I gotta show up somewhere, do what someone tells me, etc.  That&#x27;s something I chose voluntarily, but gives me much less freedom than the alternative.<p>But I&#x27;m beginning to get where this would all go--you&#x27;re going to play word games and redefine &quot;freedom&quot; until the answer is &quot;everything is owned by someone&quot; (or, I&#x27;d venture to guess, &quot;freedom means whatever ancap says&quot;) is somehow maximally free.<p>Well, of course, ownership itself is a severe curtailment of freedom.  I can&#x27;t just exist in my body anywhere I want, because some places are &quot;owned&quot; by someone and that person could eject my body from &quot;their&quot; space.  The very idea of a private space is such an assault on my freedom to walk and exist where I want, I don&#x27;t see how there could be <i>less</i> freedom in the world, once everything is owned.  This whole &quot;no commons&quot; thing seems about as un-free as it&#x27;s possible to imagine.<p>Unless, of course, we all negotiate to give everyone access to a number of well-demarcated spaces and resources.  We could call them &quot;common&quot; places or &quot;the commons&quot;!  Ha!<p>But like I said, I think this little chat is about to turn into dumb word games, so I&#x27;ll step away here.