I don't know what Jon`C will say about this, but liberty is a contextual term that I think libertarians misunderstand. As is the state. It's simply untrue that you can have actions that are totally uncoerced, and while this may seem obvious, the recognition of this fact makes it hard to accept libertarian premises. Take, as an example, someone born into a city who lives in an apartment and is relatively poor. What choices does this person have for food? Realistically, they can go to a grocery store and buy food, or buy prepared food. They may have quite a few choices, even some good ones. But they can't, for instance, grow all of their own food, or feasibly move to where they could, since land is owned. So no matter what, in order to survive they're coerced into buying food from a private enterprise. This means they have to work to have money to buy food. But to work, there also aren't many options: they're limited to maybe a few government jobs, or whatever privately owned enterprises are offering work. So they're de facto coerced into working for someone - and in libertarian terms this is called "voluntary".
Some people in this situation may have the option to move up, to acquire better work, found their own company, or live outside of society. However, for the great majority of people in the world, the past paragraph describes their life's situation. And, in fact, the demands of this coerced private employment can, at times, be extremely tyrannical. Moreover, due to the way many places handle organized labor, people have a hard time banding together to resist the demands of the people they're coerced to work under. For instance, wage theft is rampant in the United States, and without an effective state and with conditions of labor suppression, workers have little recourse to recoup their losses, and if people can't get life essentials outside of that employer, then you're effectively living under tyranny. The degree to which private employers control workers is pretty extreme, following social media, tracking and harassing labor organizers, demanding work outside of normal times.
I should mention too, that private property rights are extremely emphasized by the right. While personal property is fine - I have big problems with private property. Any investigation in the course of history will reveal pretty clearly that private property is never earned by uncoerced means - private property is always established through some war, some degree of violence and unfair treatment. Unless if private property is reconsidered and redivided fairly, then private property is a tool that allows certain people - i.e., people with the capital to run a business, to exploit other people who don't own private property into working by the means I stated above. So private property, in every instance it's ever existed in the world, has been unjust.
How does the state factor in? Well, in any polis, you have polity who engage in politics. People figured out centuries ago that, rather than roughhousing in the streets every time people have a dispute, it's better to organize some wise people to make decisions in terms of conflict. So that people, you know, don't die and stuff. The state is effectively then a conflict resolution system. So then - why does the right emphasize private property rights and hate the state? Well, that's pretty easy to figure out. The state has the potential to allow the polity to deem the actions of one of these private tyrannical employers wrong, and give effective recourse against them. The ideology is one they espouse that directly has the effect of preserving their power over people and limits the recourse people have against their abuses. So I don't think it's a good political belief.
