Fair enough. To me, being liberal means minding my own business (i.e. being responsible for and in control of my own life) while respecting/acknowlegding opinions and actions of others that are different from my own; being open to new ideas and consider changes if they are deemed beneficial for me, for the ones I care about, and for the common good.

You beat me to it. Lol

@Matias You don't take the phrase 'mind one's own business' literally. It means more like respecting each other's privacy, not imposing your ideology on others and vice versa, that sort of meaning.

@Matias if you ask for help, with rent or social justice, or whatever, then it becomes my business...your idea is i'm suggesting being complely passive no matter what? Fool!

@Matias I know not of a single libertarian who thinks there is no meaningful level beyond the individual, but I do know many libertarians who realize that if human beings are not gratified on an individual level then they never truly will be as a society (as a whole, aka collectivism). Have to disagree with you on the battle cry part there, and that sounds like the hardline conservative approach to the matter and not an actual libertarian take. Libertarians do recognize structured society does indeed exist, and believe interactions in society should be on a voluntary basis (voluntaryism). Thatcher was a hardline conservative, hardly libertarian.

Again, the true liberals not only recognize society as a whole but that in order for said society to thrive individual rights must be respected under all circumstances, and in turn when individual rights are respected the people are generally happier and more productive with considerably lower levels of crime. The true liberals/libertarians recognize our collective strengths and differences help build up society when no force or coercion of any sort is being promoted, through voluntary actions we move society forward in a positive direction. You said above: "The corollary of this is that individuals not only have rights, but also duties and a responability for the well-being of society and the common good." Not arguing that much, we all do have duties to fulfill in society... but it should all be carried out on a voluntary basis though, for as soon as any sort of force enters the equation liberalism as we know it dies a tragic death. When so-called liberals (actually referring to American progressives there) seek to implement force against every citizen, whether that be via excessive taxes/unfair laws/or Federal and State authorities, that constitutes authoritarianism, because such actions are not genuinely liberal. What @TheInterlooper linked to above, while a lengthy read, pretty much offered the clarifications you were seeking.

Of all the points raised in this post, this one in particular I vehemently stand behind... if a human being does/cannot find gratification on an individual level, then said person will surely not find such gratification from society as a whole let alone be a productive member in society. That is the reason why the situation(s) in my country appears to have degenerated to a point of no return, because the overall focus of those running things here in the US have turned their backs on individualism in favor of collectivism, under the guise of what's more beneficial for society as a whole. As long as progressive collectivism is allowed to take center stage, the society I live in as a whole will continue to suffer random acts of hostility and violence and upheavals of the sorts.

As for homo sapiens being social animals, that's a valid point, but it's also worth pointing out that in order for social structures to be successful voluntaryism is a key part in that equation, all individuals voluntarily helping out and interacting with one another, and voluntaryism and libertarianism are not far removed from one another.

I agree with you on the contradictory meanings part, which does make it hard to attach that label to any particular group. Such confusion is mostly due to the fact that there are conceivably various areas in which one could either be more liberal or conservative on.

When someone asks me which am I more of liberal or conservative, I often respond by asking what is it exactly that we are striving to either be liberal or conservative on? Some of those areas would be (not necessarily limited to) the overall economy/economic policy, foreign policy, the Constitution or federal laws establishing the rights of its citizens, and social-based issues. Regarding the economy and Constitutional rights I'm right-leaning, but lean more to the left when it comes to foreign policy and social issues, pretty much split evenly there, so how would one label an individual like me? I'm sure some would say liberal, while others would say definitely conservative, but all in all I'd say my overall views and state of mind would fall under the independent liberal category.

Political identities of course vary from country to country, and all these labels can really wrack one's mind after awhile. Small wonder why there's an increasing number of Independents in my country.

@SpikeTalon That is very true. I would term you a thinker. The surest sign of a thinker is the inability to fit labels, to them.

Too bad many people who identify as liberal are in fact skeptical of items 1, 4, and 7.

@Alienbeing So I've found as well, but i.m.o.
Without #1 the others won't happen.
Without #4, the choice of law will not be discussed in a meaningful way.
Without #7 progress and innovation will stagnate. But #7 should do no harm.