OK. If I understand you correctly, "liberty" is simply a concept which one can use to justify himself in exercising "defense" -- some sort of force or violence -- whenever he chooses to defend. And it likewise justifies one in claiming that he has been wronged, whether he chooses to defend himself or not.

But as a former law professor, I cannot resist the Socratic follow up: "so what?" How does it help anyone to get attached to a word that merely has a circular reasoning back to "If I hit you, it is because I defined to myself that hitting you was merely defense."

You say there is no need for both parties to agree that a certain action gives rise to a grounds for defense. So how is anyone better off by getting attached to, or identifying with, this concept?