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?
Maximising personal liberty, to them, means maximising the rights of property owners to do whatever. Hypothetically, if we were to say it, it would be an admission that property rights doesn't give people more freedom, but in fact restricts a lot of people's freedom.
But in terms of rhetoric they've kinda got that one and no one really talks like that.