No, you think accountability is the implementation of rules. You said so yourself. You set it up so that freedom (having the pool) and accountability (required to be secured from children) were contradictory. You created accountability on the part of the homeowner by the existence of rules.
I might not have been clear on my original post. The accountability is the consequences of not properly securing the pool if a young child drowns in it. At least that was what I was intending to write.
In the absence of those rules, what responsibility does the homeowner have for that child? Is it his child? Is the child there with permission? How can the homeowner be responsible for someone when that person isn't supposed to be there? Your example is nothing less than the thief suing the homeowner because the former was bit by the latter's dog when the former was attempting to burgle the joint. I have no responsibility, and therefore, no accountability, for what happens to people not invited to my property.
I am using a situation based on the doctrine of attractive nuisance. The home owner would most likely not be guardian of the child as the child in this scenario is trespassing. The doctrine only applies for young children. The home owner would not (in a sane world) be responsible for a burglar that gets injured.
I think you need to provide an example because I can't see liberty being at risk if the state is kept out of the equation. What powers do my neighbors have to infringe on my liberties? The only risk comes from the state. I didn't invite them in. Did you?
I agree that infringement only happens when the state is involved. The most invasive example that I can think of would be political correctness. Think about the chilling effects on liberties that has done.