Yes, I should add that in the OP.

Libertarians look at an *instance* - and determine the valuation based on that.

-The vulture and the sellers both consented on the vulture purchasing those items, when that transaction happened. Yes, perhaps, other people also wanted to make a purchase - however, the seller preferred to sell all his stock immediately to the vulture. 

-Once the transaction is done, we enter a new *instance* - the property is now the vulture's. So it becomes natural that a transaction with the hurricane victims is only legitimate if the vulture consents of it. Because it's *his* property to give, not that of the sellers. 

This is in contrast to the case of Johnny Mexico, who would be willing to give *his* service/other property to outsiders, who would be equally willing to give him *their* services/property in return - however, Donald is preventing that transaction, even if both property holders would like to make it.

I do think that liberty is generally good. However, that is a *conclusion* to make. It's a tool we derive from the wanted result, as said. I don't think it should be ever presented as an axiom. If the tool decidedly does not fulfil its purpose, it shouldn't be used, for that instance.

I see.  In that case, yes, proposal #3 is complete in the sense that it is a self-contained and consistent principle that can be applied.  #2, on the other hand, relies on something else such as morality to guide it.  However, I stand by my claim that #3 is not wholly adequate to do what we expect out of our civilization.  It's incomplete in the sense that by identifying its rigorous principle it gave up part of what I was looking for in "liberty".  For example, I would not consider free speech a transaction. 

Yes, that is an issue I have with it as well. As a whole... I feel that it's a morality that *cares* too little? I don't know.

I'm not really happy with any definition that I've found of liberty, so far, and I don't like the idea of guiding my decisions by something I can't define, so I try to avoid calling upon it, if possible, for now.

Liberty is a relation among persons. That liberty is violated only when someone else interferes with it. So my vote is #2.

So, solitude would necessarily be absolute freedom?

Say, you're stranded on a tiny island, by violence of nature  - does that make you free?

if you choose to live in solitude go right ahead and become a hermit.

Only a person can interfere with your liberty.

Not by choice. You're stranded, by a storm, let's say.

Or someone that is paralyzed from the neck down.

i would say that such a person lacks freedom.

I learned the word liberty from MGS2 .

I view liberty in terms of autonomy. 

Negative freedom is the freedom to not be interfered with.

Positive freedom is the freedom gained from self-mastery, by obtaining skills and resources. 

Republican freedom is the freedom gained by not being dominated by another

All of these are valuable in so much as they make an individual autonomous, in other-words, in so much as they secure one's control over one's own life. 

Liberty is the full realization of one's self through a combination of negative, positive, and republican freedoms. I see all of these as complementary rather than contradictory.