You just ignore that less restraint yields more oppurtunity,

As I said, this depends on the situation.

and that happiness is completely subjective to the individual?

I don't ignore this. I recognise that to maximize happiness one must maximize opportunity which can only happen by maximizing equality as well as freedom. I.e. by maximizing positive liberty

As for why not being clear without other propositions is bad, I've already explained in my other article as in my other comments to you like this one.

I don't agree that their subjectivity is unrestrained. There are a variety of justifications for private property, but they are not infinite.

I didn't say that they are infinite. I said it was unrestrained. As in, what is good is picked practically out of a hat (a priori axioms etc) or alternatively from internally inconsistent "axioms" such as self-ownership. It is not restrained by utilitarian considerations.

I don't agree that their subjectivity is unrestrained. There are a variety of justifications for private property, but they are not infinite.

I didn't say that they are infinite. I said it was unrestrained. As in, what is good is picked practically out of a hat (a priori axioms etc) or alternatively from internally inconsistent "axioms" such as self-ownership. It is not restrained by utilitarian considerations.

No, it goes the collective doesn't have a right unless the individuals of that collective have that right. Likewise for ability.

A collective doesn't have rights. It doesn't exist as an entity outside of the collection of individuals. However for this quote to make sense I think you're referring to your comment here.

The principles that lead you to reject property, forced interaction and whatever else are all logically derived from your fundamental ideal that you have applied to society. They are not just rules in and of themselves.

Which leads me to explain that never said that my utilitarian start was ever supposed to be applied to the society and not the individual. In fact, it supposed to be applied to the individuals only as a society is only a group of individuals. What I am saying is that I give far more weight to the ideal that provides the best benefit collectively rather than those which provide the best benefit individually as the latter may bring a far worse result as game theory predicts.