The contradictory concepts at the foundation of the C4L manifesto reflect, I think, the confused liberal notion of "private property." The term, which in an economic context refers to "private property in the means of production" and specifically the legal right of capital owners to appropriate the products that non-owners create with capital, is equivocated in individuals' minds to "private property" in the sense of being secure in ones' own possessions. By using the same term for very different concepts, the victims of private property (in the capitalist sense) come to associate the very means of their exploitation as being necessary to their security and happiness.
Another example of why libertarianism must necessarily imply socialism
Shit libertarians say.