> because the right to not have other people's choices imposed on you is a made-up right

I agree with this statement. Actually, I consider this more of a principle than a right. Society should aim to minimize the degree to which it imposes the will of the government on the citizens, not fundamentally because freedom is an a priori right, but because it leads to a more peaceful society.

A society where the citizens do not tolerate would be tyrants that want to excessively dictate how people live, tends to be (EDIT) more stable, innovative or economically competitive over time.

Citizens of a freedom-loving society may not all understand this from first principles. Even if most believe they have such a right somewhat dogmatically, it may still have the same outcome.

Dogmatism may come with the downside of seeing people with different opinions as evil, though, and may sometimes lead to needless conflict.

I'm less sympathetic: I wouldn't want to live next to a house that has opted out of sewage service.

> the right to not have other people's choices imposed on you is a made-up right

You just said the right to not be a slave is a made-up right.

> it's too onerous to have to maintain lists of houses not to put out if they're on fire

So don’t? — but you’re losing me at the point you go from “I save money by not tracking exceptions” to “I have the right to make you participate because I want your money”.

If you consider obeying the law equivalent to slavery, then I absolutely am saying that. The law is other people's choices imposed upon you.

Sure — as is slavery.

Which is my point: you’re not differentiating between the two, while asserting that you don’t have the same rights in one case.

Slavery was also the law.