Hi! There’s no such thing as “freedom to murder”. Freedom cannot infringe upon itself any more than gravity can infringe upon itself. Think of freedom in the aggregate - there is only one freedom being parcelled out to everyone.
If my freedom were to infinge upon yours, that action would be denying freedom, reducing it in the aggregate; it would essentially become “non-freedom”. A thing cannot be both “A” and “not A” at the same time. So murdering is not actually a freedom.
Where my freedom would impose upon yours, my freedom ends. Not before, not after, but precisely there. This is the natural limit on freedom. Man cannot limit freedom morally.
There can be under real anarchy.
Ok, so you didn't understand the argument. Murder is not a freedom, it's an act of violation, which is an anti-freedom act, a non-freedom, because it violates freedom. A freedom cannot violate freedom, that makes no sense. Just because you're able to do something doesn't make it a freedom. Saying you're against certain "freedoms", like murder, is the same as saying you're against certain acts of "love", like rape. It's just not that.
What you're calling "freedom" is merely ability. And what's the difference between the ability to commit murder with governmental law or without it? Nothing. People commit murder all the time now. With law, if you commit murder, a group of people with guns will attempt to hunt you down, and in a free society, people can still do that.
The only difference is words on paper in an office in Washington. Anarchy doesn't mean there are no consequences for one's actions - natural law enacts consequences through other people, just like man's law does.
"Violations" can happen under anarchy or government.
Um... yeah, that's not even close to an intelligent, relevant response to what was said. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but your "search" is far from over.