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?
Liberty is pure ideology unless you want to argue that the freedom to do something does not include freedom from the consequences of that action (in which case we already have complete personal liberty e.g the freedom to starve rather than work). If we try to argue that personal liberty includes not having to bear the consequences of our actions then it fundamentally does not work IRL because action begets reaction. For instance, if I take your wallet from you, you probably wouldn't like it and might retaliate somehow. Why do I not have the personal liberty to take things from you as I please?
Any interaction requires two distinct forces which effect eachother. Between people (in society) we invent laws and social norms to mediate this interaction and make it amenable to both parties. Adhering to these laws and social norms requires a degree of subordination in which one's personal liberty is lost to the collective interest. Private property is one such relation since it restricts our ability to take as we please. Market relations are another.