Freedom or liberty has to be defined negatively (e.g. absence of constraints) and precisely to have any objective meaning at all.
I happen to think that, in aggregate, the current system of the government forcibly removing some property from everyone to provide a system in which the remainder of the property is protected under the rule of law preserves a larger fraction of property rights than a more theoretically pure system free from such coercion would be.
I may be wrong about this, or I may be right, but I think it is hard to prove either way, as we do not have a sufficient understanding of social dynamics to argue from simulation or first-principles, and empirical data have too many confounding variables.
The “robber barons” are their heroes and their dream is a return to the Gilded Age.
Labeling this “freedom” is a pretty cute bit of rhetorical gymnastics.
Jane Mayer’s recent work is recommended reading on this subject: https://www.amazon.com/dp/0385535597
Or if you want something shorter, from a few years ago, http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/08/30/covert-operatio...
You may want to study property rights (protection from pollution) and freedom of speech (publishing studies).
I don't know about the Koch bros, but libertarians are the most anti-corporate people you can find, precisely because government and corporations collude to destroy individual rights and freedom.
You may want to stop reading your lefty media if you are to retain any intellectual capacity.
They'll push for repealing environmental protection laws, but not for the tort laws that reduce their liability for polluting. They'll push for repealing regulations that are advantageous for unions, but not "Right to Work" laws that prevent unions and businesses from forming contracts requiring all laborers to be part of the union.
For example, you might define property rights as the negative freedom to do what you want with your property (property as defined by government, btw. e.g. humans are mostly not allowed to be property anymore. Or, the groundwater below your land might or might not be your property in your jurisdiction.). Alternatively, you could define property rights as the positive freedom of being able to peacefully enjoy your property, which could require the government to protect your property in various ways such as defending you against illegitimate claimants to the property.