[WS:] So summarizing the argument was too much for you? Or is a variant on the intellectual snob names dropping "if you only read blah blah blah...."
FYI, I have no interests in conceptual debates, at least at this point in life. What concerns me is the socio-political realities. In this country, the word "liberty" is used to denote the ability of businessmen to do as they please without any interference from government and society, except bailouts and subsidies. End of story. If someone wants to tell me that the "word" liberty means also something else than that - I do not doubt this. After all, abstract words mean whatever people want them to mean.
Arguing that "liberty" can mean something in the US of A is quite pointless and even dangerous, because it will almost certainly lead to a political bait--and-switch. The supposedly desirable concept of liberty that you named dropped but did not describe will be used to get a public buy-in and then substituted with the concept of liberty that is a standard fare here - the liberty of businessmen to operate without any regulations. In fact, it looks quite stupid to me to have a debate on the terms that are defined by the opponent, unless one has a masochistic desire of being a punching boy for the wight wing pundits.
-- Wojtek
"An anarchist is a neoliberal without money."