Radical Freedom

Early Sartre placed extreme emphasis on radical freedom and the ability for one to make choices using that freedom regardless of one's place in life or one's surroundings. Of course, we know that doing that would be impossible (because we now know that we are not conscious of everything that we do and the reasons why we do it) and Sartre himself later denounced this so called "radical freedom" unaffected by our surroundings. The later Sartre still believed in the freedom (and necessity) to choose for oneself, but he recognized that certain aspects such as our surroundings or economical places in life effect the way in which we use our freedom, like it or not. I do wonder, though, what the world would look like if all people used their "radical freedom" that Sartre states we are born with. Sartre thought that if we all reached the point of leaving our anguish behind that we would have somewhat of a Marxist utopia where everyone can make their choices and do whatever they want without consequence of society. While I do find the idea of Sartre and Marx's utopia, I have to ask if that could ever really work.
Some people, using their radical freedom, would choose to do immoral things that would obviously effect society. If someone used their freedom to kill your brother if would effect you even if they thoroughly thought things through and claimed responsibility for them. Even things that are not as extreme as that example would effect everything in one's life as well as the lives of the people around them. Humans are social creatures that are highly aware of those around us because it is in our nature to be so. Take love for example. If someone that you're involved with decides, through their own free choice, to go have a relationship with someone else, it will probably adversely effect your life. Sartre would have highly disagreed with me there.
Using Sartre (and his wife, Simone de Beauvoir) as an example, one could argue that radical freedom is suited for some people and not others. Sartre and his wife maintained an open marriage, which they were both allegedly happy with. It would appear that they each made free choices without regard for the other and were able to maintain a happy, lifelong partnership in doing so. However, I do not think that those who are not completely devoted to the existentialist cause could truly follow such a life. Most people are too highly effected by the choices of those around us. This leads me to ask:

Do you think that you could be a true existentialist? Is radical freedom suited for everyone, or a select few?