I personally haven't looked into the etymology of the word libertarian, as it hasn't bothered me too much, however since the popularity of anarcho-capitalism, and so-called 'right libertarianism' has been on the rise, I've seen an increasing number of formerly clueless radical lefties all of a sudden turning into historians on the origins of the word. All of a sudden, I'm seeing droves of lefties claiming that the REAL definition of the word belongs to <insert perverted form of left-wing 'anarchism' here> and that they don't even consider anarcho-capitalism to be anarchic because it involves the proliferation of markets and 'wage slavery'.
Has anyone else noticed this, and are there any decent reads on this? I'm guessing the libertarian movement vis a via Ron Paul has given new life to the revleft's angst, and instead of spray painting revolutionary art on private property, they're finding ways to play No True Scotsman with ancaps. Anyways, a good read on this would be appreciated, I'm increasingly finding myself reading conflicting evidence on this topic.
As I understand, free market economists in America love to annoy leftist opponents by twisting words expropriated from them. "Anarcho-capitalism" is just a blatant mockery of the word "anarcho-syndicalism".
"Paleo-libertarian" is another parody word coined after neoconservatives angrily started denouncing conservative opponents as "paleoconservatives", just to make it seem like they were the true conservatives.
Look, people like Walter Block, William L. Anderson, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Lew Rockwell, Murray Rothbard, and all else probably didn't even care about words, and just liked to make fun of their opponents by taking this nomenclature game as amusingly far as they could.
The reason they do it is that some of them have been branded by various labels throughout their life which kept changing. Rothbard and Rockwell were "ultraconservatives" in the 1950s-60s environment, and then suddenly became "leftist extremists" and "communist sympathisers" into the late 1960s and 1970s. Their views never changed one bit. They know how ridiculous words can be, and do their best to play along.
At the current stage of the Austrian School, most of its members are not merely like any pro-liberty free marketers, but have gone to the roads beyond, down to the origins of what liberty is about and to what broader tradition it belongs. They don't believe in mere utilitarian discussion of economics at this stage. It's something more. The word for it, I do not know, but it's probably what Mises called "high civilization". Perhaps they are "civilizationists"?
I agree, Patreek, the word game can get rather annoying at times. However, it can be helpful when identifying where people stand, but people need to clam down on the labels. It gets tiresome.
The word "libertarian" was first used to refer to people who believe in free-will in the late18th century. Any other use is wrong!
I'll give them back libertarian when they give us back liberal.
To quote Mises, "The usual terminology of political language is stupid. What is 'left' and what is 'right'? Why should Hitler be 'right' and Stalin, his temporary friend, be 'left'? Who is 'reactionary' and who is 'progressive'? Reaction against an unwise policy is not to be condemned. And progress towards chaos is not to be commended. Nothing should find acceptance just because it is new, radical, and fashionable. 'Orthodoxy' is not an evil if the doctrine on which the 'orthodox' stand is sound. Who is anti-labor, those who want to lower labor to the Russian level, or those who want for labor the capitalistic standard of the United States? Who is 'nationalist,' those who want to bring their nation under the heel of the Nazis, or those who want to preserve its independence?"
"I'm not a fan of Murray Rothbard." -- David D. Friedman