In my view, you have the right to freedom and to the fruits of your own accomplishments. But you haven't the right to the property of others, nor the right to control the free will of others, true. The state also doesn't have the right to such things, which is my personal point.
As most of our founding fathers noted, a country based on extensive individual freedoms (which means the freedom to pursue one's own interest rather than pursuing some state decided common objective) cannot survive unless the citizens themselves are virtuous, unless they thus exercise the freedom to pursue their self interest with responsibility, ethics and goodwill.
To the extent that they are not virtuous, their freedom will be lost, while the power of the state grows.
Of course, one of the justifications for extensive individual freedom is one of the same justifications used for extensive governmental authority, that human beings cannot be trusted to be virtuous and good. The choice, I guess, is whether the state must reign in its unvirtuous citizens, or the citizens must be free of unvirtuous rulers. Of course, the original hope of the USA was the latter. Lost now, to a large degree, for various reasons.
Exactly (freemarketeers represent the corruption on the right while pro-abort/pro-atheism/pro-perversity moon-bats represent corruption on the left).
Machiavelli wrote in several places that it is very hard to maintain freedom in a corrupt society.
can you elaborate on this? This isn't making sense to me...perhaps I'm not interpreting what your trying to get across correctly.