&gt; <i>I agree, but another person exercising his&#x2F;her right could violate my rights. Ideally rights are defined so they aren&#x27;t in conflict...</i><p>I think that would only be possible if the rights were very weak or unnaturally restricted, for example if their validity was restricted to strictly personal region of space. In a free society, people&#x27;s intents collide and arguments happen.<p>I don&#x27;t think your example with drone presents such a collision though, since a person flying a drone does not imply surveillance is happening. Only if the person intentionally uses the drone to violate privacy there is privacy violation.<p>&gt; <i>I do believe the government can compel speech when it is an artistic cake maker making a same sex wedding cake.</i><p>Why should government interfere with people&#x27;s views on  marriage and sexual relations? That is something theocracies do. I think it is basis of free society that anyone is able to express their opinion and act accordingly even if it pisses off somebody else. If the cake maker does not want to do a transaction, the best solution is the homosexual people get the cake elsewhere. I see no reason why government should compel people to do things against their will in this case.