I'm not so sure - entire revolutions have been had about this, and extensive documents written, for centuries[1]. Not everyone is a negative utilitarian.

I value living a society where cooperation is voluntary. Involuntary cooperation is indistinguishable from a degree of slavery.

1. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/rightsof.asp

Declaration of human rights was about the right to have your house burn down? You always learn some new made up crazy thing on the internet!

No, it's about not being forced into compulsory insurance schemes in various disguises.

Can you quote the specific bit that supports your point? Because I see some bits that go in the other direction.

> Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights. These limits can only be determined by law.

Point being that liberty itself is a value that it is reasonable to optimize over negative utilitarianism.

> Law can only prohibit such actions as are hurtful to society.

Willfully becoming a homeless drifter is in fact hurtful to society :)

This is actually the main point of contention. Prior to United States v. Butler, the government's power to provide general welfare was limited/narrowly interpreted. Whether individual liberty supersedes general welfare or vice versa is the main disagreement. My point is only that reasonable people can disagree about this.