Report Why is it immoral to limit an individuals freedom? in Questions about Objectivism Posted June 24, 2012 Whoa, easy. I'm on your side! Don't shoot! And stop sharpening that axe, you're making me nervous. The source of man's rights is not divine law or congressional law, but the law of identity. A is A-and Man is Man. Rights are conditions of existence required by man's nature for his proper survival. If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work. If life on earth is his purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the irrational. Any group, any gang, any nation that attempts to negate man's rights, is wrong, which means: is evil, which means: is anti-life. I understand this and I agree with this. What I'm looking for is a short, concise and easy to understand (possibly based on appeal to emotion) way to explain this to a collectivist(-leaning) person, who would argue that "some reasonable limitations on individual liberty" do not negate an individuals ability to live, as evidenced by basically everyone in Western society. No one is completely free to do as he pleases, we all live with taxes and many, many laws that say what we must not do, even when we want to; and what we must do, even when we don't. I'd have to agree that it is quite possible to live under these conditions, and, at least in Western nations, even quite comfortably. In extreme cases, one might even argue that "life" is quite possible even for slaves. I know that life is more than morgue avoidance, but I'm looking for a way to explain this in a few sentences to someone for whom things like "life qua man" and "self-esteem" (in the Objectivist sense) mean very little.