Please point out where exactly I attacked you personally (post # and which sentence). I didn't mean to; IF it turns out I did, I will apologize. But first please show me what to apologize for.
What´s wrong with balancing individual rights with the needs of the society? All free countries have to do so. If they don´t, they aren´t free, because they either [...] or they´d ignore the need of protection of individuals in conflicts of individuals (e.g. no police). [...] The needs of society are the rights of the others combined
If needs of society = rights of individuals, then there cannot be any conflict between the needs of society and the rights of individuals (how can something conflict with itself?), therefore no need to balance anything. The government's job is to protect all the rights of all innocent individuals all the time. Of course, it isn't possible to do this job perfectly--sometimes the police will come too late etc.--but the government is there to do its best at it.
Noone can claim that his rights count more than the rights of all others.
The underlying assumption being that there are conflicts among the rights of individuals. Well, that is what happens when you invent rights like "the right to a silent night." A right can only be a right as long as it doesn't violate the equal rights of any other individual. Period. If any action encroaches on any of my rights, then no one can rightfully perform that action. To say otherwise would be a contradiction.
And that means that individuals have a right to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness--and that's it. No "right to social justice," no "right to a silent night," no "right to listen to music" etc. And no "needs of society."