I agree that people have mixed interests, but what I'm saying is that you can't empower the government to impose collectivism on one issue, then expect them to respect your individual rights on another issue. For another thing, if you empower the government to impose collectivism on any issue, the good of the people will be replaced with the good of the state, namely the good of the people at the very top. The only way to live with a government is to put the rights of the individual above all else, and extend that philosophy upwards, with the rights of the state coming last. So, for example, gun control and free speech, despite being a threat to the state, are preserved as individual rights. But then we empower the government to impose collectivism on an issue like gay rights, where they can force an individual to do something that goes against their personal morals on their own property. We've just said that the rights of a certain individual are more important than the rights of another individual, and the government is of course the one who gets to decide whose rights are more important. Free speech is the same way. If they can decide whose rights are more important, then they can curtail the free speech of one person because it's hurts someone else's feelings. Or take away your guns because someone finds them scary. The end result is that no one has any rights if the definition of a right includes forcing someone to do or not do something.