No, coercive governments that only infringe "a little bit" are not a balancing act. There is a definitive line. All people have the right of peaceful self determination. Yet, NO people have the right to undermine or infringe anyone else. That is the divide.
When another person, group of people calling themselves your leader, etc. attempt to shift the line to make initiating aggression against a peaceful person a "lawful act" or some other form of rationalization, the line is crossed. Collectivism is not the problem, coercion as a default of ANY system is the problem. People that voluntarily agree to form collectives are not committing aggressive acts as long as the door in, includes a door out.
The USA by default does not allow for a peaceful person to opt out,and it NEVER DID, all are included, like it or not. You cannot have too much liberty if you are respecting the liberty of others. The USA does not abide by this, there is no escaping this simple fact, regardless of how many good smurf stories you can come up with.
Greed alone is a vice, not a crime. If you fill yourself up with cake until you burst there has been no crime or disaster that concerns others, it's your business. It is only when the ruler, individual or a collective tells you what kind or whether you can have the cake that there is a crime and a disaster.
