Scott:
Of course, the word freedom has little meaning if we do not have a common definition.
Of course the word has meaning without a common definition. See Wittgenstein’s discussion of meaning and the definition of “game”. There is no single comprehensive definition, and yet we all grew up knowing what it meant to play a game.
I see that you do not define the term “rights”. You begin with an appeal to the theory of natural rights but ignore the connection between natural and legal rights moving back and forth as if there was no significant difference between them.
Freedom starts with a principle of self-control, also known as self-ownership.
Do you mean autonomy and self-determination? I know some people without much self-control, who are free.
Because freedom entails political equality
I know of no government in which there is political equality. I do not have political equality with government officials or those with political influence. They have the power to make, interpret, and enforce the law. While it is true that I am free to pursue such positions, there is a significant difference between pursuing something and obtaining it.
In all forms of government there are some who are free and some who are not. If it were true that freedom entails political equality then it would false that anyone was free.
Basically, a free person has the legal allowance to do whatever he or she wants insofar as he or she does not offensively harm or coerce other people against those other people's wills.
Here you must be talking about some ideal state. None of us have the freedom to do whatever we want. We are legally bound to the law. If the law says that something is illegal, it does not matter whether the illegal action causes offensive harm. If the law says I must do something then I am not free to ignore the law.
Freedom obviously can not include the legal right to limit other people's freedom because that would be illogical.
Why is it illogical? In order for me to be free your freedom must be limited. You said this above:
freedom can only logically entail as much legal rights as compatible with the same legal rights in others.
For example, in such an absurd society, people might all have the legal right to stab other people, but nobody could have the legal right to not be stabbed and thus would not have the legal right to defend themselves from it.
This does not make sense. Why wouldn’t they have a legal right to defend themselves? The law may not protect them from being stabbed, but this does not mean they do not have a legal right to protect themselves, say, by using you legal right to stab someone who is trying to stab you.
freedom as the legal allowance of all people in a society to do whatever they want insofar as they do not offensively harm or coerce other people against those other people's wills.
My disregard for energy efficiency causes harm to others. My intent may not be to harm others, so it not offensive harm. The distinction between offensive and defensive harm is not sufficient to remain logically coherent regarding the problem of harm and freedom.
Theoretically, freedom is not that complex of an ideal.
The history of political philosophy does not support this assertion.
And I beg you to stubbornly resist those who suggest placing limitations on freedom.
This is both theoretically and practically problematic. There are many laws in place intended to improve our safety and well-being. Some have been around long enough that we no longer question them. Taxes, mandatory education, child labor laws, social security, military draft, vehicle safety laws, EPA, mandatory medical insurance, and other laws have all rejected by some segment of the population as coercive restrictions on freedom. So, while it is noble to stand up for freedom, one may end up standing on the wrong side when it comes to human rights and dignity.