Nominally, I'd argue its better here than elsewhere, but that does not mean here is not a problem. However, your error is that you attribute the compromise due to the mandates of 'community/society/nation.' This is wrong. It's due to the state, which is not synonymous with community, society, or nation. Society can exist in as much as it is voluntary. Though I don't agree with all of it,
Practical Anarchy is a good start in many ways.
Anytime two or more people gather together to form a social unit (a household, a family, a workplace/town/city/state/nation) there will be conflict because each member has different needs, interests, abilities, weaknesses, strengths, etc. Politics is the process by which these differences are recognized and prioritized, with decisions being made to resolve those differences in such a way that the social unit's goals are achieved. (The social unit's goals ideally arise--even if imperfectly-- from the needs of the members, but not necessarily: e.g., dictatorships, traditional workplaces). These decisions necessarily injure the "pure liberty" of everyone in the social unit, because the members are all different and the decision is always a compromise of some sort.
It isn't about society accommodating itself to you, it's about your rights as an individual mattering. Democracy is no justification for tyranny. Something does not become morally or ethically sound because 51% of the population voted for it. The 'popular will' carries no more moral weight than it does physical weight.
Leave aside morality. I'm not convinced that's the best way to think of it, except in the case of (for example) the founding principles of the US, which were driven by Enlightenment ideals of the worth of individuals vis-à-vis the state, the crown, etc. Leaving aside those historically recent ideals, the problem is always reducible to how a social unit manifests its reasons for existence, how it's organized, and how the individuals within it are affected as a result. I think there has been a historical trend toward balancing the calculation more and more in the individual member's favor. But even under the most ideal, enlightened conditions, with human nature being what it is, there are always going to be differences that have to be resolved--through politics.
When I said that it would be unreasonable to expect society to accommodate itself to me, I was suggesting a thought experiment in which my interests and desires are a minority view, and the actions of the social unit's majority thereby diminish my liberty. It's true: my liberty has been compromised. But that's an unavoidable consequence of how my social group has chosen to resolve the conflict. They (we) chose to use majority rule, which is one way of doing it, but not the only way. If it wasn't majority rule, it would still entail a political process of some sort, which means--at best--compromise, which means winners and losers on the issue in question. I don't see how it can be otherwise if you are choosing to live in a social group.
If you succeeded in a political goal such as reducing or eliminating taxes, you would regard that as an enhancement to your liberty. On the other hand, I might regard the same action as a diminishment of
my liberty (maybe I like to breathe clean air, and you've eliminated the EPA). Again, if you're living in the social group we call the USA, how can you, even in principle, secure liberty for yourself without taking it from others?
I'll look up Practical Anarchy. BTW, in the latest New Yorker, there's a
profile of Gary Johnson, the libertarian presidential candidate. He seems like an interesting person, not a typical politician. I don't plan on voting for him, but if it was between him and Trump, I'd definitely vote for Johnson. He's been a governor (NM), and he's started and built "real" businesses.
