I see what you mean. I think that in this case, Donald is preventing John's ability to freely use his wealth, as he is preventing him from effectuating transactions with others. (This is the same violence that a libertarian would claim to see in taxation, or tariffs - just in a more physical form.)

I can see how some ambiguities can pop up, if we follow that path. However, I do think that it certainly convincingly covers a much broader spectrum of situations than 2 could.

Regardless, I personally find that, in essence, 1 seems to be the most sensible - which leads me to the conclusion that liberty is a superfluous concept. Though, none of this is strictly bad, either - there certainly are some fine minds that have defended the others, or have found more value in the definition of 1 - just have yet to convince me.

But now haven't you abandoned the absolutist position you desired?  Doesn't every transaction inherently affect other possible transactions?  This is an extreme example, but hasn't the hoarder in your hurricane example just built a different sort of "wall" around those essential goods?  Donald Trump could put a door in his wall and make John pay a fee to get stuff:  a tariff, basically, but not one imposed by a government. But no more so than the hurricane vulture selling his goods is charging "taxes". 

The difference (to a libertarian) is that the hurricane vulture, at that instance, has the property rights over the resource - obtained through a consensual transaction. While Donald is preventing transactions between different people. 

Again, I personally support a morality based on expected value, rather than liberty.

Depends in Germany insensitive tweets are now punishable by law.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/06/20/world/europe/germany-36-accused-of-hateful-postings-over-social-media.html

Freedom from class conflict.

Not only that - Germany has recently become the most censored country in Europe (judging by the number of accounts being blocked on Twitter)

We're officially even worse than Turkey now:

https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/welche-inhalte-twitter-in-welchen-laendern-sperrt

It's being able to do and say what you want within reason without an authority trying to unduly impose oppressive restrictions on you.

Ah, so you say nulber 2. What makes something oppressive, then? What defines within reason?

Limiting free expression/speech beyond threatening/encouraging violence is oppressive. 

Within reason as in common sense laws like don't murder, steal or rape others or destroy other's property.

If you require those specific discriminants, the concept of liberty isn't a very useful one, then, is it? Doesn't give any new incite on how to treat morality, since we're still going on a case-by-case basis - no progress from just saying "this good" , "this bad" without further explanation.

Also, what is violence? If we define it as anything that causes harm to another, that can be VERY broad. If we don't... again, more discriminants, more arbitrary lines to be drawn.