Liberty seems to be a central value to achieve for many Americans, however, it seems to me extremely difficult to define in any manner that's both coherent and powerful.

So what does it mean to be free, for you?

1) Being *able* to do what you want?

2) Being *allowed* to do what you want, by others, as long as you don't infringe in their liberties?

3) Or the necessity of your consent for any transaction of your property 

I like the first the best, but that does not make "liberty" as a concept very useful, as it simply becomes a roundabout way of expressing utilitarian values. (coherent, but lacks power.)

The second definition leaves room for a lot of ambiguities, in my eyes (exactly where *do* the liberties of the other start - every action you make has an effect on the life of another person, so we need to draw lines, in some places, which can seem to me arbitrary.) I feel calling upon this definition is again simple redefinition of conflict, which doesn't add any pertinent information to its resolution - making decisions no less arbitrary.

The third definition, stemming from early philosophical libertarians, was clearly well thought-out, and upon further reflection, doesn't induce in any major contradictions, while simultaneously providing a lot of information on the the judgment of a situation. However, it's a definition that seems very *artificial*, non-intuitive to me, which does not necessarily respond to human nature in its entirety. I also dislike the fact that it is willing to accept any *current* state of things as morally equivalent - judging only the modifications.

So, how would you define it?

Of the three, #2 seems best offhand. #1 seems like a sort of primal definition, of which #2 is perhaps a refinement to fit it into a society. #3 seems incomplete (as if it, in trying to be specific, thereby went a bit off target)

Liberty is a concept for stupid people to say stupid things and further their stupid agenda. It had a meaning once when there were actual oppressive regimes around. The way it's used today in generally free countries has completely warped its meaning.

Liberty stops at common sense and human decency but a lot of people have to take it to its extreme. The concept itself is contradictory because absolute liberty is impossible.

Oppressive regimes are a thing of the past, gotcha. 

No they aren't but the word gets its most use in countries that aren't being oppressed.

Though even the oppressive regimes today are nothing compared to those in the past.

I think the term "liberty" is a very subjective one but one that generally might refer to an individuals´ strive towards independence and self-sustainability. Personally I view liberty as a way to enable people to make decisions that benefits them, their lives and society as a whole. But this liberty has no real value unless it is balanced in such a way that you do not cause other people harm.

I rarely look at liberty from an economic point of view, but more in term of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, strong social safety nets that aims to enable everyone the opportunity to succeed on their own terms and so on. I guess it makes my view closest to the second example you mentioned.

So you wouldn´t mind if the government infringed on your freedom of speech then?

Its an insurance company. Liberty Mutual. Liberty stands with you. I see the commercial all the time.

As long as there are borders and walls there will not be liberty.

Libertas, with other Roman goddesses, has served as the inspiration for many modern-day symbols, including the Statue of Liberty in NYC. The Greek equivalent of the goddess Libertas is Eleutheria.