Christine, this is not worth arguing about.
But just go back a little, and you will see this discussion(?)began when you responded to my post to Ish, in which I said that "libertarianism IS liberal, if the term liberalism is defined in its original sense."
You challenged that statement, saying, I recall, that liberalism and libertarianism have virtually nothing in common, that the former is the faith of good-hearted generous people, while the latter is the faith of nasty selfish people. (Thank God I am not a libertarian! Whew!)
In other words, you took a remark about the relationship between libertarianism and historical (classical) liberalism, and challenged it on the grounds that it did not correspond to your perception of the relationship between libertarianism and present-day liberalism in this country.
Since I thought you had misunderstood me, I cited the Stanford U. piece on the evolution of liberalism. For your part, you say I misunderstood you.
So it goes. The perils of cyberspace communication.
Joan
Edit:
PS: And since I was educated as an historian, I do tend to think that knowing the history of a concept is essential to understanding it in the present. Chalk that up to professional prejudice, if you will. <g> |
