I think how the term 'freedom' is defined in your hypothetical social system would benefit your post and clear up some lingering questions. It was touched on a bit in your dialogue with dwin, and perhaps you have discussed elsewhere outside of my purview?

When I speak with my European friends about various US issues, the term 'freedom' comes up frequently and I ask for it to be defined. Almost without fail, what I hear is along the lines of "Freedom is being able to do what you want to do." After pointing out how that can be abused, e.g. I really want to kick you in the balls (the example from your discussion! ;), it is automatically amended to "Freedom is being able to do what you want to do, as long as it doesn't hurt anybody else."

Then comes the issue of how 'hurt' is defined and how action or inaction can result in hurt and how the desire to prevent hurt will in practice tend to legitimize the imposition of force by an outside authority. Being subjected to force by an outside authority that someone may not agree with tends to suggest that this definition of 'freedom' is not what was intended. As of yet there has come no solution to that conundrum except, as suggested elsewhere in this thread, that people are educated from the very beginning in a different way so they are more considerate of others.

As a counter-proposition, I then suggest perhaps we could consider the following definition: "Freedom is the innate right to not have to do something an individual does not want to do." The subsequent discussion is frequently fruitful, but many tend to reject this definition because it entails you don't have to obey others or allow yourself to be imposed upon (taxed/kicked in the balls etc.) even though that external force is "well-intended". This is the tyranny of good intentions, which seems antithetical to what many wish to believe freedom is. (Note none of this touches on biological necessities like if you want to eat or not, which frequently get mixed up in the conversation). I have no conclusive answers to give here, but I am tapping forwards...

This suggests then that one of the few remaining options is voluntarism, and the statist mindset is very much opposed to voluntarism. Frequently this opposition wears the mask of concern for our fellow man, but often enough I have head the belief explicitly stated that that "people just aren't smart enough to act in an altruistic/self-beneficial manner". And perhaps they are correct at this time in history.

I would also point out as someone who has spent a lot of time in the German speaking realm, that left and right in the US and EU are understood very differently. As far as I have experienced, I have yet to meet a European who agrees that all taxation, except perhaps on goods, should be abolished. Europeans tend to view the state as a benevolent though somewhat bumbling big brother that they largely trust (I use b.b. intentionally here given the surveillance state), whereas the American experience has given rise to a somewhat less trusting stance towards the state.

As such, from a US perspective, even the conservatives in Europe are essentially on the left side of the political spectrum. Whether left or right, Europeans tend to agree with the forced extraction of wealth and wealth redistribution policies - and for good reason, it has treated them well since WWII. Whereas in the states ca. 50% of all tax money goes to feed the war machine and leaves precious little for the people after the bureaucracy takes its more than generous cut, in Europe most of the tax money actually goes into the social programs and (though admittedly much diminished because it has to feed the parasitic middleman of the bureaucratic state) back to the people. These very different experiences greatly influence how the political spectrum is viewed.

Another point entirely, getting rid of der/die/das in German entirely won't work because it is a case system, whereas English is a syntax system. I am not fond of German gendering articles, but removing them would create significant difficulties. We could however get rid of 'die' und 'der' and make everything 'das' however. That may also satisfy the current fad of gendering everything... hmmm... but then we would have 'das StudentIn' which is whack.

Very nice discussion.