As you all are probably familiar with, a lot of real unsavory types like to claim that some version of "maximizing personal freedom" is one of their core values, even if the things they actually support seem to contradict that.
Is personal liberty a good thing to have as a core value, and it's their interpretation that's wrong? Or is it something about the concept itself, where it sounds good but actually pursuing it leads to negative outcomes?
Alternatively, is it just a big empty signifier that can be used to support basically anything, i.e. it's impossible to meaningfully distinguish between correct and incorrect applications of the concept?
Uhh. Depends, how receptive are they to acknowledging that all personal property in the present day started with someone murdering someone else and taking their land, and all personal property derives from those acts of coercive violence?
Cause if they accept that all personal property is taken and held by violence they might accept the basic premise of "property is theft" and that people who don't own property are being deprived of the opportunities that come from not have to do wage labor to not die.