Dunatis Posted:

At which point who is deciding these liberties in the first place?

There is no who. Liberty are actions you can rightfully take, and rights stem from self-ownership, which is basically a grundnorm justified by the fact that in discussion or even with acts of initiatory force, people are trying to convince the other or making implicit claims about what one does. If an action’s logical implications cannot be universalized (such as having a master/slave clbum), we must remove it from consideration, as there’s no reason other than might makes right behind it—and that’s no reason at all, just a bash to the skull. Anything which involves non-universalibility or performative contradictions necessarily can’t work. The short of it is that we are left with self-ownership as the remaining option.

Dunatis Posted:

And how would they be defended?

Either personally or by an agency with whom you contract, in much the same was as you would hire a carpet cleaner or pest control. This of course puts to lie the Hollywood notion of “private police as mercenaries”, since clearly a pest control company isn’t a mercenary outfit.

And without a government, you can’t get coercive monopolies.