That makes no sense. Perfect liberty and perfect security are mutually exclusive.

I tend to agree with your sentiments, and my political comments are typically pretty anarchistic, but I don't think we should let language become a barrier to communication instead of a bridge. I can understand how some conceptions of "liberty" are increased by certain security measures. If you can safely have a picnic in the park, you have the liberty of safely picnicing. If the park is full of bandits who consistently take baskets from picnicers, you've lost the liberty of safe picnics even if the official government isn't the one who took that liberty from you.

Again, I'm not arguing for increased security, just for understanding the way others use language.

The freedom from worrying about hunger and basic needs and violence from others is security. It isn't referencing total physical security, it is referencing government vs. no government.

M8, Spinoza had some wild ontology to justify his claims