You defend freedom without defining it first. If freedom is not having your rights -- to person and property -- invaded, then you can't have a government, as that would be anti-freedom.

Laws are arbitrary preference rules by either "the people" or by an oligarchy/dictator, about what individuals can do with their body and property. It's inherently an invasion of those two basic human rights, thus anti-freedom.

Practically, common law (or jungle law, as you call it) can be peacefully developed through time, without need of central control (the government.) For instance, common law was that rules Ireland for many centuries, until Britain "civilized" them. But this empirical information is useless, as it doesn't matter if central law works better than "jungle law," only the latter respects basic human rights, and subsequently freedom.

You don't need to repeat your personal beliefs, but you can prove that violently imposing those belief on others, are respecting their freedom (of person and property.) An "internal threat" is just your opinion on how the world should be run, and you, by supporting it being unwillingly and violently imposed on others, are not respecting their rights and freedoms, but advocating for your own dictatorship.

It doesn't matter claiming you "support" personal liberties, if you wish for others (e.g. police) to harm people for doing something you disagree with (e.g. not paying taxes, generally disobeying unjust laws.) It's a complete contradiction.