::I did not say that social liberalism is a fringe theory. I said that the claim that social liberalism IS liberty (or is the modern take on it) is a fringe theory. I am not here to argue the merits of social liberalism, or to try to justify or oppose the level of liberty prescribed by social liberals. I am merely arguing that an honest, factual description of social liberalism does not attempt to co-opt the term "liberty," destroying the definition it has had for hundreds, if not thousands of years. An honest description of social liberalism acknowledges that social liberals believe maximal liberty is morally wrong, because it leaves people to struggle as lone individuals, potentially with a great deal of economic inequality that inhibits their personal empowerment. The distinction between social liberalism and liberty is as important as the distinction between social liberalism and socialism. Social liberalism borrows components from both liberty and socialism, but is equal to neither. 
 ::On the other hand, libertarianism is literally (and is commonly defined as) the political philosophy of maximizing liberty. Libertarian scholars do not make efforts to redefine liberty, but to discover what it has meant through the centuries, and to figure out what sort of political system would allow the highest degree of liberty that is logically possible. Not just the highest degree of liberty that is advisable, but the highest degree that is logically possible (as in, not self-contradictory). Libertarian scholars are the experts on the concept of liberty, just as socialist scholars (e.g. Marx, Engels) are considered the experts on the concept of socialism.