Yes it does, Hayek does talk about this. But Padraig also said he and Friedman were hostile to personal freedom.
right, I see where the confusion is arising
if you look back you'll see that I never said Hayek or Friedman were hostile to or against personal freedom, I said they were
contemptuous of all personal freedoms besides the "freedom to choose" i.e. to take part in the market.
that one specific freedom is indeed the basis of their position - they think that all other freedoms flow from that freedom, which is what
@vimothy says above i.e. neoliberals see the market as the best guarantor of personal freedoms in general - but at the same time they're actively hostile to anything that impedes the optimization of society for the market. that is, in name of the supposed freedom the market brings they're happy to trample over many other kinds of personal freedom, i.e. using the power of the state to impose austerity and other widely unpopular policies, as well as to dismantle parts of society that resist market logic as Thatcher did. as I said in the other thread neoliberals - the "neoliberal thought collective" as Mirowski puts it - resemble, with deep irony, nothing so much as a vanguard of Communist intellectuals imposing their ideas on the people in the name of the people's supposed ultimate freedom.
"indifferent" to other kinds of personal freedom might be a better way to put it than contemptuous, but the contempt comes out whenever there's a clash between the freedom to participate in the market and any other kind of freedom. thus their general contempt for democracy - it's only useful if it advances their goals. if not, they find some other way to advance their goals, which is exactly why Hayek stressed the importance of creating think tanks - Institute of Economic Affairs, Manhattan Institute, etc - to get upstream of having to actually sell the public on their ideas.