That is quite a profound point you make about the third party restricting the freedom of the first two! I have never thought of it that way, but it makes plenty of sense to me. Love that wisdom, wow!

I guess my own responses would be as follows:

Define freedom in your own words

The ability to pursue your desires without interference from others

What are the limits of freedom?

I am not free to interfere with other people's pursuits of their desires when those pursuits do not entail interference with other's desires (I sort of folded your three party example into here. So person A can stop person B from interfering with person A or C)

According to the answers to these questions, do you define yourself free?

No, I would not consider myself completely free. I submit to the rules and laws of a government, of which I do not always agree. But I value the sacrifice of freedom in exchange for the security, convenience, and services that this government provides. I do not want or need unlimited freedom in order to be happy, so under your definition I would have freedom, but under mine, I do not.

Thanks for the thought-provoking think piece!