> 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

> 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.