There is no absolute freedom of speech. Liberty can only go so far before it infringes on somebody else's liberty. That's why I said that the concept of liberty is flawed because absolute liberty is impossible. So a compromise has to be made.

How far that compromise goes is up to the individual states and their people.

With liberty it's less about what the government infringes and more about what liberty you infringe on someone else's liberty. The government itself isn't a separate entity. It's supposed to represent and protect the liberties of its people. So it's not really an infringing on you, but an enforcement of protecting someone else from your infringement.

No, what you said was:

"Liberty is a concept for stupid people to say stupid things and further their stupid agenda."

And who spoke about absolutes? Liberty isn´t an absolute state of the world but rather a constantly moving goalpost where we try to find ways to balance absolute freedom with society as a whole. You have one end of the scale where there is no liberty at all and you have the other scale of the end with absolute liberty, even if it infringes on other people´s liberties. But the degree of liberty we have is still present on that whole scale so how can it then be a concept for stupid people?

Because stupid people are the ones constantly moving the goal posts as they please. The concept itself is useless. We shouldn't concentrate on how "free" someone is but rather how respectful we treat each other.

"Freedom" is a strawman used by stupid people to justify being assholes.

By "stupid" do you mean unintelligent or what?

And it´s not a manner of moving the goalpost as you please. You raise the matter of being respectful to other people but that is also very subjective: does it mean to ever question other people´s opinion or to questions them? To always agree with your kids behavior or to be strict and harsh? But either way we apply being respectful, we can still discuss the concept of being respectful without being, as you say, stupid. The same goes for liberty.

Because I assume you meant to be respectful when you called people who wish to discuss liberty, stupid?

3) Is certainly not incomplete - it really does answer the most questions with the most precision. The question is more if you like the answer or not (I don't - I find it very artificial, with the stated issues.)

My problem with 2 would be, for example;

Say, there's a hurricane incoming, in a poor nation. A smart businessman quickly buys all the essential supplies in the area, and then proceeds to sell them at a ludicrous price, which locals are forced to pay (if they can even afford it.)

1) would probably tell you that this goes against the principle of liberty, since you are preventing a lot of people from getting something that they strongly want;

3) would tell you that it's a perfectly valid transaction of wealth;

2) would tell you... well, I don't know, really?

The problem is, to me, it really doesn't seem to *solve* any problems. It simply calls them by a different name. Just shift the problem from "is this right?" to "is this infringing upon other's liberties?" 

To answer anything clearly, it seems to me that this forces you to either establish an infinite number of arbitrary discriminants (so, no progress whatsoever from just declaring everything right or wrong on a whim) or reducing your concept of "border of liberty" to either 1 or 3.

Being able to say what you want without offending a minority or a vulnerable group. Which is kind of difficult these days with cultural appropriation and special snowflake syndrome.

Now, that seems like a rather arbitrary definition, and very restricted in its use.

you have the liberty to say what you want, it's the consequences you're afraid of.

For an example of what I meant by incomplete, suppose that in a tragic misunderstanding Donald Trump built a 50 foot wall around the house of John Mexico.  Has he infringed upon John's freedom? 

The topic is incredibly well implemented in Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty. I would recommend the game, it is very interesting and has brought many players to think. In addition to the topic of freedom, the psychology, the meaning of life and politics are addressed. By Hideo Kojima. MGS2 is also available for PS3 in an HD Collection. I love the philosophy.

Freedom means so much. But very few people can live freely. People are bound to many things. We could talk about the philosophy "Liberty" for months : D  But every human being may have a different opinion about it.