> Anyone who believes a person's rights should extend beyond the point at which they infringe on the rights of others is not worth listening to.
That's a nice idea if you don't think about it closely, but it doesn't work because rights always interact and you have to decide which takes priority in which circumstance. You can't just assert that they stop somewhere before they infringe on each other and leave it at that, because that doesn't actually resolve the boundaries.
The easy answers are easy because they aren't actually answers at all.
Of course - the boundaries must be tested. And in fact they likely must change depending on circumstance. I did not imply that someone could write up some set of rights somewhere that are so perfect they do not overlap. But such boundaries do exist and should be considered.
That's a nice idea if you don't think about it closely, but it doesn't work because rights always interact and you have to decide which takes priority in which circumstance. You can't just assert that they stop somewhere before they infringe on each other and leave it at that, because that doesn't actually resolve the boundaries.
The easy answers are easy because they aren't actually answers at all.