As much as those who seek to defend Standard English hate to admit it, language is a social compact in flux. Bill Safire, the great warrior for the language of Shakespeare, fought a battle he could never win. Every day, the entire world’s population modifies and adapts language to fulfill contemporary needs. What is in a word? Nothing more than what we hear and believe.

Still, words have power. Eloquence flows to authority, which flows to new perception. If asked, no sensible parent would give his child a dose of amphetamines (speed) on a daily basis. Yet the exact same substance is commonly prescribed to unruly children under the name Adderall. ‘Flight Attendant’ sounds more professional than ‘Stewardess’. Apparently ‘Waiter’ is impolitic, with ‘Server’ being the preferred newspeak.

Words change attitude. The drab and graphic ‘Homosexual’ has been replaced with ‘Gay,’ a word that just sounds nice. Apparently nobody consulted with perennially depressed homosexuals on that one. Rebranding an unpopular item is the first step toward changing attitudes. Good luck Altria.

If ‘Disrespect’ can become a verb, there really is no point in fighting the tide of change. Still, this blog must draw a line in the sand over the appropriation of ‘Libertarian.’ Even though the principles of free minds and free markets are under assault like never before, ‘Libertarian’ has become cool and horribly misunderstood. This blog must say: Hands off my word. Do not steal it. Do not change its meaning.

When liberals like Bill Maher call themselves libertarians, the time has come to fight, but what is and what is not a libertarian? In a nutshell, a libertarian believes that most everyone is fully capable of caring for himself and his dependants. The individual will make rational and wise decisions far more often than will the collective.

A libertarian is in favor of free markets and free trade. While these lead to prosperity, the main reason for supporting them is because they reflect the natural right to free association and self determination. While Republicans and some Democrats (Gore in the 1990′s, but not the 2000′s) argued that NAFTA was good economic policy, a libertarian would argue that the government has no right to interfere with anyone’s desire to associate and trade with any country. Even if NAFTA were to harm the overall economy (which it did not), the collective good is not a higher priority than individual freedom. Of course Maher is against free trade.

Likewise Maher is in favor of other market restrictions like unions, minimum wages, and single-payer health care. His panelists are stacked with extreme leftists and token free market thinkers, whom he flogs to get cheap laughs.

Libertarians are against the war on drugs. While it is true that the war on drugs has failed to reduce the access to illegal drugs, has been ruinously expensive, and promotes violence, the libertarian argument is not one of policy. Otherwise law abiding adults have the right to do what they want with their own time and money in their own homes. Even if a portion of the population is harmed by their own poor choices, personal freedom must trump collectivist fear. People are perfectly able to make wise decisions for themselves without a government nanny. Consider that marijuana consumption is higher in the US than in Amsterdam, where it is de facto legal. Many people remain anti-drug, but the same logic that calls the government to protect us from drugs also allows the government to ban trans-fat oil and cigarettes. Once you let the devil into your life, there are no half measures.

Maher is again wrong on this issue. Maher supports drug legalization, but his view is policy based. He is pro-drug, where libertarians are pro personal responsibility. The far better voice on this issue is Penn Gillette, a lifelong sober man, and a real libertarian.

Guns are the same issue as drugs. A libertarian trusts responsible adults to handle guns with care. Even if someone with a carry permit were to commit a crime with a gun (not a single example comes to mind), that is the worthy price for personal freedom. Collectivists like Maher deeply distrust an individual to make responsible decisions regarding guns. Perhaps because they see themselves as children of a socialist family, they expect the government to treat others as children too. Even if the Second Amendment did not affirm the right to bear arms (it does), individual adults have the right to bear arms because personal responsibility cannot be handed over to a faceless government.

If Maher is on the wrong side of every important issue, why does he call himself a libertarian? Self loathing, most likely. Maher portrays himself as an outsider, an anti-statist rebel, when nothing could be more false. Maher parties like a rock star, endorses the PC view, and leads a life free of responsibility. His left wing collectivist views are the norm in his world. Rather than admit he is a plain-vanilla liberal, Maher has latched on to the libertarian label. Libertarians are true rebels; their views are often at odds with both left and right. Maher is appropriating ‘libertarian’ as a canard for his New York Times orthodoxy.

While Maher and other phonies are free to be as foolish as they please, don’t let them ruin a perfectly good movement by stealing its word. Leftists like Maher will do to ‘libertarian’ what the neo-cons did to ‘conservative’ – ruin it and its principles along the way. So, the next time someone calls himself a libertarian, don’t be too quick to pat him on the back. Check the substance of his views first.