> anti-authoritarians are also anti-liberal

The words are overloaded, but liberal and authoritarian are on opposite ends of the same axis on the political compass. Classical liberalism stands on the ideas of individualism and laissez-faire economics. Today these ideas are also called "libertarian" but the core desire is expressed in the Latin root word. I want to be free - as in without a master, elected or otherwise, who governs my life.

> I find them overly vague

I'd be glad to elaborate. I'm positing that it's more important our interactions be consensual than value-maximizing. Would you kill one unwilling person to save a million? a billion? I would not.

> China has done quite well

China is doing well because it is able to benefit from innovations generated outside its borders. It's not able to generate important innovations on its own. This was also the main problem in the USSR. The Soviets just didn't have as ready of access to innovations born of a liberal society. Where China does use its centralized authority, the results are often catastrophic, eg. its one-child policy or COVID response.

> Liberalism also concentrates power

Some parts of this paragraph are more true than others. There is nothing in classical liberal thought about eg. patent or copyright law. Also you're broadening the definition of power that I put forward:

> Your freedom is a function of your relationship to those who can use legitimate force against you - of how much power is held over you

Corporations cannot arrest you for noncompliance with their policy. They cannot fine you. They are fragile structures, existing at the whim of their consumers and competitors. It takes a revolution to overthrow a government. Corporations live one big mistake away from ruin.

The main issue with today's corporations is regulatory capture, which is actually an issue of our government. If the government were not so empowered to regulate every aspect of our lives, corporations would not so easily be able to capture that power.

> that power is distributed primarily to members of a distinct social class with shared interests

No, it actually matters. The wealthy cannot round people up and imprison them. They do not have that kind of power. The importance of this distinction cannot be overstated.

> Responsibility is ultimately not an important concept next to outcomes.

Responsibility is all that matters in human affairs. All we do in court is ascertain it. All of our organizations are structured around it. A death is only your fault (responsibility) if you had a duty to intervene. A duty that cannot be imposed on a free person without their consent.

> The only conception of right and wrong that can ever matter to me, existentially, is my own.

Aye, but you can have enough respect for others to draw a principled distinction between your own moral compass, and how far you're willing to it that on other people who disagree. The worst human catastrophes happen when power is concentrated into hands that do not make this distinction.

> quashing the private health insurance sector and guaranteeing coverage for the whole public. This is a very successful policy which is associated with massive gains in public well-being, and yet it's anti-freedom

This is anti-freedom because it violates the rights of an individual to choose their own level of risk tolerance, and self-organize into pools with different risk tolerances. Health, just like everything else, is a personal responsibility. If you don't take care of it, it fails. The overwhelming majority of healthcare expenses are consumed by a tiny minority of chronically ill people. Many of these people do not make choices that are compatible with good health outcomes. The 80/20 rule applies. Caring for people who cannot care for themselves is the purview of charity, not authority.

The concept of freedom is actually much easier to grasp than quantifying harm and well-being. It's pretty simple: Did both parties explicitly agree to the interaction? Can either party opt out without being assaulted or imprisoned? If yes then the interaction is consensual. This is not a hard concept: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZwvrxVavnQ

Using force to impose non-consensual binding agreements is slavery. Slave holders in fact often used utilitarian justifications for their atrocities. You are not any more entitled to the services of a doctor than of a prostitute. The guiding principle of all human interaction must be consent.