portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary oregon & cascadia

government | political theory

a disussion; 'liberal' and 'libertarian'

Just a discussion regarding a specific act, but seemingly apropriate. What'dya think?

If nothing else, it exposes some real material differences that apply today. 'Connotations', if you will...Personally, while I believe both surely apply as given (I should delve in much older editions), I hate them both politically, and one should be aware of such 'shortcuts', while being difficult to damned near impossible to do without to communiocate. I'm too often left 'Huh?'
The Degradation of Language

Langage changes. (I won't use the word 'evolve' for this as to me it seems the conception of 'evolution' that most have is that definition involves some measure of movement to the image of some vague 'higher order', ignoring that the opposite is also true and, depending upon personal concept, is exhibited in nature.)

What is vastly apparent is that language needs to adhere to some measure of currently 'common' perceptions (deceptions?) that can render it virtually useless as terms. A word may be very remote from its entymological source.

Might I pose one such instance of two definitions words that have what appears to be the same entymological source.

Try the word 'liberal' and 'libertarian'.

Webster's says of the entymology of the word 'liberal*' that:

"Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin liberalis suitable for a freeman, generous, from liber free; perhaps akin to Old English l*odan to grow, Greek eleutheros free"*

Webster's didn't feel it necessary to repeat that entymological definition in its listing of 'libertarian', but I believe it's because anyone who couldn't make the casual connection of source from just the sound of the word likely wouldn't be interested in using their product. They weren't (aren't) interested in the attendant and current acceptance. (I am.) I would think that's a reasonable assumption on their part. They do list the date of source of use as 1789.

I'll also give Webster's take on each word's definition, as those definitions are the subject of the post and we can make some truly interesting comparisons other than the first two syllables of each.


1 a : of, relating to, or based on the liberal arts *liberal education* b archaic : of or befitting a man of free birth

2 a : marked by generosity : OPENHANDED *a liberal giver* b : given or provided in a generous and openhanded way *a liberal meal*
3 obsolete : lacking moral restraint : LICENTIOUS


1 : an advocate of the doctrine of free will

2 a : a person who upholds the principles of absolute and unrestricted liberty especially of thought and action b capitalized : a member of a political party advocating libertarian principles

The word 'liberal' has been around since the 14th century, says the information, and I might put forth that due to the amount of time exposed and the fact that such a thing as defined has made the rounds of European political thought now for 6 or so centuries, that the word has had a number of different takes on its meaning. 'Libertarian' seems a much more a parochial word coined at the time of the American Revolution. Funny thing to those Founding Fathers, what that meant for them
politically definitely depended upon certain associated material facts. Like any word, it was loaded with personal and philosophical perception. It wasn't really operative but in those perceptions. If you didn't own land, if you were of a particular skin color and circumstance (owned and traded as chattel), how could it possibly apply other than philosophical overbearing? Though I'd hardly say that the Founding Fathers all believe that such material circumstance as a social and political bar to many was necessarily desired, they certainly allowed expediency and rationale to deem it so. Just a fact, not an actual criticism of the philosophy. I do have problems with the rationale portion, but I understand in the light of day and then-current political thought.

*All dictionary references copyright 2000, Merrian-Webster's Incorporated, Version 2.5

Dictionary definitions can be wrong 22.Mar.2016 04:58

Mike Novack

"capitalized : a member of a political party advocating libertarian principles"

Dictionaries, of course, are about how words ARE used as opposed to what they "should" mean. In this case, depends who is using the word.

The members of the Libertarian Party THINK of themselves as libertarian. And perhaps about 10% of them ARE libertarian (my estimate based on talking with Libertarians). The term "libertarian is of course how the individualist anarchists describe themselves. But the bulk of the Libertarians are very selective about the liberties they espouse. Sorry, a narrow view of what should be considered liberties, just those that favor me, that I want, but not those that favor you, that you want, is NOT libertarian. Real libertarians are consistent.

The bulk of the Libertarians are Randists (see Ayn Rand). If you want to see about real libertarians, look at the American individualist anarchist tradition, people like Lysander Spooner or Benjamin Tucker ---- or else "Max Stirner" (the only philosophical opposition that Marx considered serious)

agree, Mike 22.Mar.2016 13:19


And thanks for such (in my poor life) the references. I've the same take regarding 'libertarians', most I see as being simply 'expedient'. Well, I could be 'expedient', and Trump (heaven fuckin' forbid). One could be entertaing (quite an operative word?) me as candidate. Your thought as expressly made my point, and the reason for the exposition.

I've not looked too much into anarchist philosophy and exposition. Simply because I have one of my own (philosophy) in reaction, and long ago realized, as I'd stated elsewhere on Indymedia, that most at some point (unless they never realize their outcome of their philosopy) come eventually full-circle, as Lenin may have, that the ultimate expression is totalitarian...or death (that ultimate and only expression of free will.

Rand was an ass, though a good story-teller. I admit, I've only personally read her fiction, and though, after reading that, I had never any respect for, let's say, Greenspan (a faker and theorist who could put Congress to sleep with little effort; ever watch some of those 'expositions'?), but it did have me have some respect for Ron Paul. I would appreciate, if in discussion only, more references. I've limitations...a little help has always been necessary.

One is judged by what they do, not what is said. (One does have to eat. There ain't no getting around that fact, much as some try.) Wouldn't you agree? While at some point physical expression (physical acts) becomes necessary, if not expressly immanent. You can end up on the cross, and even that was expressly political. I've little respect for those who choose to talk first, though ralize that road, also.