I find your comments interesting and thought-provoking. For me, the difference between the SUV example and the fist example is that we’ve agreed explicitly as a society where we allow the SUVs to go. If there was a “fist swinging” custom, surely there would be an equivalent of the double yellow line.

As far as an act of aggression, yeah, if someone’s swinging his fist around near my face, I feel like it’s prudent to assume it’s not just because he’s a local airspace hobbyist. What I am trying to convey in the article is that we owe something to each other, and liberty comes partly from our cooperation. When I distinguish liberty from “liberty” I am not attempting to negate arguments that don’t fit my generalization; I am separating things that truly make us more free from things that only make some of us feel more free.

Let’s say we live in an open carry state. The right to bear arms is sacrosanct, but the right of people who don’t want to be surrounded by weapons should carry some weight, as well as the right of a business owner to create whatever environment seems most conducive to keeping customers happy. It would be downright aggressive for either an open carrier or an anti-gun person to claim that their rights are the only ones that matter.

I think most people consider a decent chunk of the airspace around their noses to be a no-fly zone. I could be wrong, I suppose. Still, I also think most people are good, on the whole.