The Non-Aggression Principle[1] is generally accepted as rule #1 for a limited government or a maximally free society. I can't speak to the ideals or proposed solutions to this from the Hobbsian State of Nature types.
I consider this an axiom of any discussion about liberties, rather than as an option to be separately considered. The only point of talking about "liberties" or "freedoms" is in the context of there being more than one person, because otherwise the discussion is irrelevant as it would all amount to the same regardless.
So I suppose the real option 3 is as follows: kill every other human except for yourself.
> How do you handle the fact that "the right to swing your fist as you please" and "the right to not get punched in the nose" are both legitimate freedoms?
The answer is simple: individuals do not have the sanctioned freedom to strike others due to the NAP. This feels so plainly obvious to me that i'm worried i'm misunderstanding your position.