[EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK]

That assumes that second person necessarily takes away something from the first person by the nature of her existence. In reality, this is not the case. Two persons can cooperate and kill a mammoth together, so both now have more spare time - a measure of freedom. A tribe can capture more territory - a measure of freedom.

[pron]

> That assumes that second person necessarily takes away something from the first person by the nature of her existence.

No, it does not. It just asks whether the second person has the freedom to do something that will restrict the first's freedom. Either way, the two are no longer fully free. My point is that the very nature of freedom requires allocating and restricting it in certain ways. There is no such thing as not restricting anyone's freedom.

[EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK]

Well, looks like we are arguing about different things, because precise definition of "freedom" does not exist.