: People are not, never have been, and never will be the sole arbitrators of their own lives, they've always been and will always be hemmed in by social connections.
It is not whether or not there are constraints to what you can do, Shannon may answer by restating the non aggression principle. It is about who is doing the hemming, why, and whether punitive action is reserved for those unwilling to be 'hemmed in'.
Because there are social connections there is not an automatic righteousness (nor inevitability) about being hemmed in - whether its a person in America who feels hemmed into having to work at a job to obtain a living, a lower Caste Indian denied regardless of merit, or a girl in whichever tribe it is that performs barbaric female circumcision denied personal choice in her own body.
Hence the point isnt to say "thats the way it is so there" but to challenge it, not to say "I need my neighbour so I shall be his keeper and slave" but to challenge it.
The libertarian position - that social connections be voluntary and individuated - would seem far more appropriate to humankind than any kind of dictatorship. The idea of stateless socialism seems pleasant too - if one assumes that just about everybody on the entire planet agrees with it, and agrees to its effects on their personal lives. Both are unlikely, the first because so many people appear to gladly swap liberty for leadership, the second even more so because such agreement does not occur.