This sounds like an extremely high resolution description of a group/category of people that likely numbers in the millions. If you encountered someone doing the same but based on a different categorization, you'd likely see the obvious epistemic problems involved, but seeing the same in oneself is difficult, especially when criticizing your personal out-group. That's just one aspect.

> This hypothetical "free person" is then also responsible for the results of their actions and for any oversights or vulnerabilities caused by their "free" status.

Is this a two way street? Are the authoritarians and experts who decide policy on highly uncertain data, at best, going to be held responsible for the fallout of their actions? I see little historic precedent for this in the US, and plenty of counter-examples.

> There are very good reasons we allow ourselves to be part of a society or country - people are always better equipped to survive in groups.

Does the group have to consent to authoritarian rule? How about we try transparent & honest, evidence-based reasoning and negotiation first. Maybe people would be a little less resistant then.

> They usually have an ego that...

Be careful when discussing matters involving the ego, they can be very mischievous and deceptive, often leading one to believe things like they possess extraordinary abilities in perception, when the exact opposite is actually the case, just as one example.

> ...they don't understand or identify those benefits, they are entirely unwilling to accept the lack of them which is the case if they're entirely "free".

> ...they want to have their cake and eat it too...

> They usually have an ego that allows them...

Well just because you can think of a hypothetical selfish and entitled person who isn't willing to suffer for liberty, doesn't mean everyone who advocates for freedom is that person, and if anything it makes the case that these people should be brought to put their money where their mouth is.