Thanks, Coben. I stand corrected,

So neo-liberal is the opposite of old-school liberal. What a language! Newspeak. Each word means something and also its own exact opposite. George Orwell, 1984.

But it does not obliterate the fact that I was ignorant. Thanks for the enlightenment, Coben!

So neo-liberal is the opposite of old-school liberal. — god must be atheist

Not really. Historically and in most of the world outside America today, “liberal” means what in America is usually called “libertarian”, because “liberal” in America had come to mean somewhat the opposite of what it historically had meant. In most of the world “liberal” is contrasted with “socialist” and is the main form of conservatism. (And a “libertarian” is a kind of socialist, just to make things extra confusing).

I live outside the USA, and it seems, also outside the world, because here Liberal as a political movement means "leftist", and conservative, "rightist". Liberal can also mean "centrist". But never right-wing, and never extreme left wing.

I don't think I should worry about it too much. Words mean not much any more, and communication is defunct in most instances. Because, basically, there is no inherent value in communication any more, other than "how do you code that", "what's for dinner" and "No, I'll never do that, you sick pervert."

I'm curious where you live that's not the USA and still uses "liberal" to mean "leftist".

Originally there was that association, which is why the left is still called "liberal" in the USA today even though they're no longer "liberal" in the classical sense still used elsewhere. But after (classical) liberalism largely won over its early enemies and socialism sprung up, socialism (originally libertarian socialism) became the new left and capitalist liberalism the new right.

And then most of socialism turned statist, and liberalism became virtually synonymous with capitalism , to the point that state capitalism, i.e. fascism, is now denounced as "socialist" by self-avowed liberal capitalists. And nobody even remembers anymore that libertarian socialists ever existed, so in the USA where the left=liberal association stuck around (despite their "liberals" becoming increasingly state-socialist), they appropriated the term "libertarian" to mean liberal capitalism instead.

PfHorrest, Why do the Republicants call the Democrats "libtards" if liberal was not associated with leftism but rightism? I am not arguing, but I don't live in the United States (I only vacation on Earth from Neptune when I get a chance... the carbofluoric acids are EXCELLENT here, and the bars have very healthy atmosphere), and I am only going by cultural / language snippets.

"The poor are struggling. We must introduce social programs." - person.
"Cry me a river, liberal!" - Republicant.

??? If liberal meant rightist, this saying in bold would never have got coined.

In the US, liberal does mean leftist. Around the whole world, liberal USED to mean leftist too. Then the old (feudal) right largely lost, and a new (socialist) left rose up, to the right of which was the old liberal left. In most of the world that old position kept being called liberal, but was now the right side of the mainstream spectrum, with socialism to the left of it. In the US (and apparently wherever you are), the left side continued to be called “liberal” even though it had now shifted a bit toward socialism, and what had been called liberal before was now considered on the right. In both places remnants of the old right attached themselves to the new right, making it even more conservative than it already was in comparison to socialism. In the US, those who rejected those more socially conservative elements, but who could not call themselves “liberal” any more since that had come to mean “socialist”, rebranded themselves “libertarian”, disregarding the fact that that name was already in use by a little-acknowledged anti-authoritarian brand of socialism.

god must be atheist has become googly-eyed.

PfHorrest, your thinking is way too complex for my comprehension. Maybe facts are, too, but I haven't yet noticed that.

---------

Libertarianism is an Ayn Rand version of individualism, I know that much. It has nothing to do with liberalism or with conservatism. It advocates complete independence in economic matters to the individual. It is the stupidest economic craze ever invented by a stupid, no good philosopher.

Maybe “libertarian” is a good place to start then. Originally, “liberal” meant the same thing that “libertarian” in the Rand sense means now.

That position was to the left of the status quo of the time, which was aristocracy and theocracy and such. So “liberal” was associated with “left”.

Then the aristocrats disappeared, and socialists appeared further to the left of those old classical liberals.

In most of the world, that meant that (classical) liberalism was now considered to be on the right side of the spectrum.

But in the US and apparently wherever you live, the word “liberal” kept being used as a synonym for the left, even as the leftmost positions became increasingly unlike the classical liberal position. That’s why in those places “libertarian” was coined as a new name for classical liberalism.

(Even though “libertarian” had already been the name for a kind if socialism before that.)