Liberty is indeed subjective, but unless it is rooted in a consistent framework of consent and non-aggression, it risks becoming a mere euphemism for majority rule or state coercion. The social contract, if used to justify that coercion without consent, becomes problematic. Liberty should not mean trading one form of oppression for another under the guise of collective benefit. The social contract is a fraud: no one ever signed it, and the State enforces it at gunpoint. True contracts require explicit, informed consent - not mere residence in a geographic territory. Thus, the invocation of a "social contract" often becomes a rhetorical tool used to justify state coercion without genuine agreement.

Freedom to own a weapon is not equal to freedom to commit violence.

Pollution is an invasion of property rights, and should be treated as such under the law - i.e., as a tort or nuisance, actionable by the victims. In other words, pollution should be punished - not because the government says so, but because it constitutes an aggression against another's property.

Liberty means non-aggression and voluntary interaction.

If you want me to expand, please say so.