I think that as far as the "absolute freedom" bit goes, the spirit of this question means that each of us is absolutely free from a greater governing body. I think to get caught up in the technicality that if another civilian tries to harm you, steal from you or otherwise infringe upon your freedom then you are not truly free causes you to miss the point about that part of the question. I take this to mean that we are suddenly, at least temporarily, without the Social Contract. Correct me if I am wrong, vince.
True. I regret if I seemed to be dismissive of BT's post.
Jimi Hendrix's "Freedom" and then Blue Mink's "Good Morning Freedom" both just came on back to back and reminded me that I never answered the question for myself. I would have to choose absolute freedom. Eventually the social contract would emerge again and it would be hard going until then but, damn it, it won't be boring.
Regardless of if my interpretation of freedom, my interpretation for "absolute security" must also be rejected for my logic to fail. I see absolute security as practically being in a coma, something I feel almost anyone would say is less desirable than nearly any state of affairs, especially any which contains any sort of reasonable freedom (absolute or not). As such, if you doubt my definition of freedom or my definition of security, but not both, the entire argument still stands strongly I think. I apologize for the delayed response.