A group just means a number of individuals. Geographic areas don't necessarily come into it. If a group of people decides to start acting out a system where they pool their money together or what have you, that's their choice. Nobody else in the area has to comply if they don't want to. Unless this idea gained traction and a whole town starts practicing it and its members refuse to do business with people who aren't participating in their system. Nobody's rights are violated in such a system because a) It's completely voluntary on all sides, and b) Nobody should be forced to do business with someone they don't want to. This would be a weird scenario, but if a non-conformist finds their life difficult in such a town practicing such a practice voluntarily, they should just move somewhere else.
It's a good thing we're a constitutional republic rather than a democracy. (Or rather, we're supposed to be.) The whole point of inalienable individual rights is to protect the individual against coercion by any number of people, from one to 51% to 99% of the population who might vote to coerce him. Socrates being voted to death because his ideas were seen as disruptive to the youth or whatever is an example of pure democracy.
No idea what the rest of your post is rambling on about. Except I think you're suggesting that under a "free society", there's nothing to stop people from stealing from or murdering each other. Laissez-Faire Capitalism is not anarchy. There'd still be police, courts, (volunteer) army. There'd still be rule of law and not of men. And don't even try to conflate laws and regulations. (I'm pre-empting that, because all anti-Capitalists invariably try to conflate things like that.) Legitimate laws protect inalienable individual rights by defining crimes that violate those rights and defining punishments for those crimes. That way people know for sure what actions are crimes and what the punishments are. (And before you pick that one out of the whole argument to pick at, you don't have a right to violate someone else's rights. Protecting other peoples' inalienable individual rights is not coercing you. It isn't coercing you to ban you from murdering someone.) Regulations coerce people who have not violated anyone's rights.
A group just means a number of individuals. Geographic areas don't necessarily come into it. If a group of people decides to start acting out a system where they pool their money together or what have you, that's their choice. Nobody else in the area has to comply if they don't want to. Unless this idea gained traction and a whole town starts practicing it and its members refuse to do business with people who aren't participating in their system. Nobody's rights are violated in such a system because a) It's completely voluntary on all sides, and b) Nobody should be forced to do business with someone they don't want to. This would be a weird scenario, but if a non-conformist finds their life difficult in such a town practicing such a practice voluntarily, they should just move somewhere else.
It's a good thing we're a constitutional republic rather than a democracy. (Or rather, we're supposed to be.) The whole point of inalienable individual rights is to protect the individual against coercion by any number of people, from one to 51% to 99% of the population who might vote to coerce him. Socrates being voted to death because his ideas were seen as disruptive to the youth or whatever is an example of pure democracy.
No idea what the rest of your post is rambling on about. Except I think you're suggesting that under a "free society", there's nothing to stop people from stealing from or murdering each other. Laissez-Faire Capitalism is not anarchy. There'd still be police, courts, (volunteer) army. There'd still be rule of law and not of men. And don't even try to conflate laws and regulations. (I'm pre-empting that, because all anti-Capitalists invariably try to conflate things like that.) Legitimate laws protect inalienable individual rights by defining crimes that violate those rights and defining punishments for those crimes. That way people know for sure what actions are crimes and what the punishments are. (And before you pick that one out of the whole argument to pick at, you don't have a right to violate someone else's rights. Protecting other peoples' inalienable individual rights is not coercing you. It isn't coercing you to ban you from murdering someone.) Regulations coerce people who have not violated anyone's rights.