Granted, one cannot avoid law, however one can attempt to choose a nation with laws that parallel one's philosophy. No match is going to be 100% perfect, but that is one of the aspects of the idea of society. If one requires a situation where one agrees with 100% of society's rules, then that person is in effect requiring a society of only one person. Any time two or more people are involved, some disagreement will arise regarding those rules and how to deal with them. At that point, a compromise must be made or chaos will ensue. Thes compromises are what make up the laws of societies around the world. Should one not desire to accept such compromises, then one is effectively asserting a desire for anarchy. If that is your goal, then that is certainly within your right, but you are declaring that you wish to be a member of no state and as such you cannot be surprised that there is nothing to protect your right to be such.
Look at it this way: Let's assume that some piece of land existed somewhere that was not owned by some entity. Further let's assume you are the one who discovers this land, and you claim it. At some level, you'd have to submit that claim and document it to have any chance of protecting it under some set of laws. Perhaps you'd submit it to the United Nations (a pseudo-government). By submitting the claim, you are joining a society of some sort and in effect agreeing to the laws of the society. If you don't submit a claim somewhere, however, "your" land will be subject to invasion and you'd have no protection or ability to stop it (after all, you wouldn't be protected under international laws or any other laws). In order for your land to be part of any society, you'd have to accept laws of that society; including the ones you disagree with.
This is true of every citizen of any nation. In order to be protected by that nation, one must accept laws of that nation including the ones that one disagrees with. In some nations, one can act to attempt to change the laws, in others one cannot do this. This is part of deciding which nation one wishes to be a citizen of.
Perhaps a person desires anarchy; in which no laws exist becuase no state exists. If that is the case, then that person also must accept that neighbors are not forbidden any action including actions that would seriously injure or even kill that person. No property could/would be owned because ownership is part of the laws of a society enforced by a nation.
A neighbor could walk into your house and take or destroy any item within without repercussion (except any that you might personally deal out). If your neighbor is physically larger and stronger than you and better armed, you'd likely be unable to stop your neighbor (natural law). No laws would mean that you wouldn't have to be paid for work that you'd performed. After all, contract enforcement is part of law as is minimum wage. If you have an agreement with an employer to do work for a given wage and the employer refuses to pay, what authority would you turn to in a lawless environment? In such a situation, basically every person would have to provide for themselves in all areas. Each person would have to become a shoemaker, tailor, smith, farmer, carpenter, etc. to assure that the basic essentials would be met, because no laws would mean that at any time, any person could take advantage of any other person without penalty.

You state "It's wrong! It's not fair to me ..." I ask the following: How is it wrong (be clear and well thought out)? Define fair (be clear and objective).

You claim that your personal freedoms don't end where another freedom's begin when you state that "The death of everything in the cosmos, short of me, is an acceptable loss for my freedom." As such, then someone else could also assert that your death is an acceptable loss for their freedom. How would you reconcile those two viewpoints without societal agreements (laws)? Please be clear in your response.

Since you are so fond of natural law, you won't mind sending Lennox Lewis your computers, your physical property and all of your money, right? I mean I doubt that you're likely to beat him in a fight, and as such, natural law would suggest that he could basically take those things if he desired them. Hey, for that matter, I'm a pretty big guy. Perhaps I'll train for a bit and walk to my neighbor's house and take his new car (I wouldn't have to train much, he's much smaller than I am and he's getting kind of old). After that, perhaps I'll start walking into banks and taking the money. As long as I can raise the firepower, why not? I mean with only "natural law", I won't have to worry about police, right?

One of the reasons the American West was called "wild" was that laws didn't really exist and people could indeed use physical prowess to obtain their own desires. This led to many vendettas and bloodbaths. As time went on, people desired the security offered by societies and laws. They wanted to know that if they earned something, they would likely be able to keep it. They wanted to feel safe and comfortable walking down a street. They gave up certain freedoms in exchange for laws to give them that comfort. In short, they exchanged certain freedoms to escape chaos. Consider that chaos is not likely going to be an improvement on the current situation.

-- Jeff

__________________
"Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem." --Ronald Reagan