If you want to explain WHY you believe "economic liberty" should be defined by the extensive policy list you gave,

By economic liberty, I mean a laissez-faire (from French Laissez Nous Faire, or Leave Us Alone) system wherein individuals are free to make economic transactions and trade with one another without any regulation, or any form of plunder, legal (taxation) or illegal (theft), with a system of written property deeds and land titles, a Gold-backed, uninflatible currency, no central banking, and enforcement of the terms of contracts.

then by all means feel free. Personally, I think your description has excessively turned a basic concept into a hyper-specific set of rules and organizational means for structuring an economic/political system. I mean, you're even describing a specific monetary system that requires "gold-backed, uniflatable currency", which is an entirely unrelated thing to the concept of economic liberty. Like, are you implying that economic liberty is impossible under a monetary system backed by silver? Why is that relevant? Why does having economic liberty rely on whether your system has a central bank or not? Your criteria for "economic liberty" just seems ridiculously over-exaggerated for what is supposed to be an intangible concept. So yes, I am very curious as to why your interpretation is what it is.

My point exactly. If so many people have been fooled so many times by authoritarians advocating for things that sound good to time, why should we not be more skeptical of those who promise the very things Hitler did? Historically, these people have a horrible track record of tyranny once they come into office, and it would be presumptuous to assume that's changed now...

No I understand that we agree that politicians absolutely will lie about believing in nice things in order to take power, my disagreement was simply in the claim that lying about a belief somehow actually makes you that thing. Saying "Hitler was a leftist" or "the nazis were socialist", while simultaneously recognizing and acknowledging that they were only ever lying about believing in any of the remotely progressive things they claimed, should be enough to prove the ridiculous falsehood of those kinds of claims. You aren't defined by the beliefs you lie about, you're defined by the beliefs you actually hold and act on.

In terms of trusting political leaders, I agree. In fact, I think you should inherently be critical of ALL political leaders ("authoritarian" or otherwise) because I am fundamentally anti-hierarchy to begin with. I do not believe that ANY person should hold a structural position of hierarchical power over others, at all, ever. I do not think politicians should exist. I am against all hierarchical, including representative, forms of government. I think republics/"representative democracies" are blatant oligarchies. So yes, I agree, I think all people should be critical of all leaders...because I think leaders are inherently bad and that they should not exist in the first place.