Freedom

It is force of individual inflicted upon the world for the purposes of self-gratification. Requires no explanation or apology. Force inflicted upon indivdual is violence, the reprehensible evil. There can be no excuse or apology. Individual must exercise self-defense when threatened by force, coersion or manufacture of consent.

i dont think their should be a government to criticize

the establishment of le fashy white ethnostate would require massive ethnic cleansing, even Richard Spencer admits it

With their moralfaggotry and "hates speech".
I understand their point "being offended doesn't mean that you are right", but is also valid the opposite "when you offend someone doesn't mean that you are right". Considering that they like to offend because they are "le edgy contrarian", their position is the most frail.
Also supporting only the individual freedom means supporting a kind of freedom that helps the bourg to exploit someone else work.

forgot also this

The general rule of society should be the maximisation of liberty (and virtue), that is the freedom that extends only so far as not to infringe on the liberty of others, under the axiom "the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all".

what about political police? do you think it should be used?

so just 'police' then?
They should not exist at all.

pick one

very ambivalent
individual freedom is obviously important, but it is also detrimental to society when taken too far
for instance, look at the tired old argument for free market schools/healthcare/whatever - it's all about the freedom to choose whichever option you like more
you hear the same shpiel when one of the free market ideologues portrays a man seeking a job as someone who has options in front of them and freely picks the one that fits him best
the problem with this is that it is like solving one of the early exercises in physics in which friction between surfaces and air resistance are ignored
friction/air resistance are the actual conditions in reality by which I mean the fact that often a regular person picks either nothing (because you can't afford it) or you pick the least bad option (and all are bad)

freedom isn't inherently good, it needs to be critically observed (I don't know the english word, it needs to be thought of critically not blindly)
I am not free to kill and rape and that is good, but it is also an inhibition of my freedom
the standard argument is that murder and rape infringe on the freedom of others but I believe that unrestricted free markets also infringe freedom except in a way that is not easily noticed/seen
with murder, rape, theft it's easier because you see the subject and the object and their interaction vividly (thief steals, man rapes, man kills etc) while with economics it's all obfuscated through the system that you are born and raised in and which itself resists attempts to be observed by always reinforcing the general public's faith in itself through its agents in government, media etc. (this makes it sound like I think capitalism is a supernatural living thing but I hope you get the gist of what I want to say)

I believe in democracy without private property. Freedom of speech is integral to democracy

Freedom in isolation has no meaning. The question always has to be freedom of who to do what to whom? At minimum, you cannot have the freedom if you destroy that by which you can be free - it's a precondition. So whatever freedom you support, you must also support the preconditions to make that freedom possible.

So for free speech, you need to at minimum support the suppression of organizations that aim to and might in actuality end free speech. It's not so easy as to say, ban anti-liberal speech! But it does certainly allow for killing enemies of freedom once they reach a threshold of power above which you cannot stop them anymore.

Punching Richard Spencer was symptomatic. It was wrong because it was pointless and counterproductive. It serves no purpose but political masturbation, the one kind of onanism I can't stand. It just gave the shithead and his shit ideas more screentime. However, if he was actually on the cusp of real power, by all means, shoot him - killing a charismatic leader can and has ruined many a movement.

Freedom for who from what to do what?

This. We literally had this thread yesterday. We've answered you before OP.