In my article on Natural Coercion and the Choice to Live, I describe the natural, inherent coercion of life:

There is no de facto right to life in excess of the right to protect and the ability to sustain.

Though life is freely given it is not freely sustained; [the perpetuation of one's] life requires some form of productive work.

Natural coercion is the foundation for all human action. The study of human action is the field of economics: human beings act productively to sustain and ultimately to maximize life. Yesterday, I elaborated a bit on the importance of productive work in Man as Creator. Through creating, man perpetuates his own existence.

I also speak to freedom, albeit subtly, in Natural Coercion:

Therefore, a man's life is the result of his choice to engage in productive work, which is rightfully protected from the injurious acts of others.

Man is free to do anything he pleases but all actions have consequences. The castaway has the freedom to find food and survive or perish for lack of subsistence. In society, man is free to steal from others; however, theft is only beneficial to the extent that the thief is not caught. The consequences of theft, justice, are injury, which is a loss of some enjoyment of life. Indeed, if all the world resorted to thievery, nothing would ever be produced and man would quickly perish.

Freedom and natural coercion are automatic, unavoidable regulators. In a totally free society, the productive, creative action of man is matched with increased life to such man. Alternatively, harmful actions and/or non-productive behaviors will result in a decrease of life for man. Violent, non-productive behaviors are weeded out of society by the very fact that they are anti-life. Such a society has less poverty because subsidies for poverty are non-existant. Individuals take greater responsibility for their own lives and the lives of their neighbors because they must: there are no other forces at play but the free individual and his production or destruction of life.

Other than maintaining a laissez-faire policy towards freedom, no additional regulation by governing bodies is necessary. Why? Because you cannot regulate away death nor can you regulate away need; to exist is to need; but to live is to want, which is to choose. Choice requires freedom.

Because natural coercion cannot be eliminated, the amount of freedom is the only thing a government can manipulate, and that amount can only be reduced. Conequently, government and freedom are at odds. Any co-existance of government and freedom is self-contradictory: the one necessarily reduces the other.

Therefore, I believe existence is only worthwhile if it is free: I hold freedom as absolute. Furthermore, I damn collectivist, socialist, and democratic societies as foolhardy attempts to eradicate natural coercion at the expense of freedom, which is the cornerstone of a worthwhile life.

A great and virtuous society is regulated only by the natural coercion inherent to an individual's life. Such a society would cherish and demand absolute freedom. It just so happens that the society I describe would be anarchy.