Freedom as a transaction 3

TJI an off-topic thread on gamesfaqs.com (I've corrected some spelling):

While I definitely do not believe or follow the Christian religion, I do respect the right for others to believe in it, and I do not persecute them.

It is because that same right also gives other faiths, and non-faiths, the ability to express their viewpoints without fear of persecution as well (rather, protection from it.).

If someone Christian (or other faith) bashes me for not being Christian (or whatever faith they subscribe to), I judge and disrespect that individual, but not the religion or believers as a whole.

Is this view of freedom as a transaction:

A) Sophomoric
B) Shocking
C) Actually OK. It's the social contract; get over it.

A.

I think it's an OK starting point, certainly better than "death to all unbelievers!".

But there is a confusion there about expressing a different opinion and persecution. I reserve the right to criticise, examine and take the piss out of anyone's beliefs (and expect the same in return).

Of course the transactional approach falls down when some belief systems include inalienable and eternal "truths" which contradict other systems.

The trade there could be: I won't mention my inalienable truths that contradict your system, if you won't mention your inalienable truths that contradict my system. Or try these:
I won't make you uncomfortable if you don't make me uncomfortable, or
I won't say anything that you will feel forced to contradict, if you don't say anything that I will be forced to contradict
The topic could now be good manners, rather than freedom.

A transaction implies the existence of two (or more) parties, but the reverse is not true. The existence of two people does not imply a transaction between them. Two non-transacting people might each live within their own separate definitions of freedom. But their definitions would have to begin "I am free to do anything that does not involve a transaction with another person."
What actions would that definition allow? I suppose it would allow one person to have a sexual fantasy about the other, or a violent fantasy. But I digress...
The point I was eventually going to make is: defining freedom without reference to other people is useless. So any non-transactional definition of freedom is necessarily flawed.