Not exactly. Liberals are very consistent in what they define as liberty, it's just that this definition of liberty only matters to the wealthy. If you're not wealthy you will suffer immensely under Liberalism. This is different than what came before Liberalism. Before Liberalism was monarchy and hereditary aristocracy. They knew they were concentrating wealth and therefore they had to provide public welfare for the peasants (nobilesse oblige). But Liberals wanted that wealth to be more fluid, to change hands, and to become a form of competition where the best could win their fortune and do what they pleased with it. They really did think that not being able to buy a castle for cash was a reduction in liberty and an affront to universal human rights. But they also thought that nobilesse oblige was also an affront to individual autonomy. They wanted all peasants to be "free" to work for whoever would pay them the most, and whoever paid them would have zero obligation to them at all.

And that's what they got. The rich and the poor alike are free now. Free to sleep under a bridge or to buy a private island. Free to trade their labor for a wage or free to invest their fortunes in weapons manufacturing and hedge it with commodities in oil, gold, and food. Free to send their children to enriching experiences all over the world or to have them working two jobs and failing school to help the family survive. Free to work in coal mines or uranium mines or to buy and sell coal mines or uranium mines.

Freedom. Liberty. Achieved. Liberalism actually really believes that.

But yes, they also used it as propaganda to get the peasants to fight on their behalf.