Comment: The only problem I see with

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Lots of questions (see in situ)

The only problem I see with

The only problem I see with your definition, if it is a problem, is that freedom from human interference is not restricted to state interference. If the presence of a state, however small, produced an outcome that had less NET human interference with other humans pursuing their desires, then it would oblige you to support the state.

After all, why is non state violence and interference privileged over state violence for a freedom lover? If having no state predictably resulted in more restrictions on individual liberty from other people than having a state, then liberty lovers would have to prefer some level of government to protect individuals from violent non state actors. That is after all the whole dispute between limited and no government libertarians.