One easy way: Limit the size of organizations + governments, and ban border control. Don't like San Francisco? Move to LA or Sac, and you get a completely different government.

Don't like Meta or Fox News? No worries, they would have been broken up at 1% their current size.

But one or two people and petty cash can be enough to infringe on the rights of dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of people.

That's 3-7 orders of magnitude less than what the current resident of the white house has achieved, depending on how you count.

Also, in your scenario, a half dozen or so people could probably take care of the one or two problematic people. There's also a lot of common law around what "cannot infringe on others rights" means, going back 100's of years. My right to infringe on your rights is not included in the set of rights that phrases like that refer to.

> That's 3-7 orders of magnitude less than what the current resident of the white house has achieved, depending on how you count.

I agree with this.

However, the standard was:

> No organization (government or otherwise) should be large enough or powerful enough to infringe on anyone's liberties

No organization should be big enough to trample on anyone's rights.

You said that's an easy standard to meet. Seems downright impossible to me.

> a half dozen or so people could probably take care of the one or two problematic people

Cool, vigilante justice.