> The difference between a libertarian and a neoliberal is that a libertarian believes that markets and property rights (aka capitalism) are the end goal, and a neoliberal believes that those are powerful tools to achieve the goals of the social left.

This seems basically false. Neoliberalism is an economic philosophy (with, admittedly, social implications), and it's radically different from the economic views of libertarianism. Both are market-friendly and laissez-faire in a way that (serious) socialism and communism are not, but that's about the end of the alignment.

Neoliberalism is not appreciably a free market policy (with the caveat that two neoliberals, like any two economists, can disagree on anything). It's open to large amounts of government involvement, pushing monetarism and deregulation but not nonintervention. Nor is it strictly opposed to government taxation and spending; its objection to the Greek model is primarily one of direct government expenditure as opposed to spending via private sector contracts.

At least as actually practiced, neoliberalism is happy to use market interventionism in certain domains. Strict intellectual property laws, formally granted 'natural monopolies', and mass incarceration (for reasons other than violation of the non-aggression principle) are antithetical to libertarians, but they are the everyday fare to neoliberal politicians.

I think these are crucial differences, because they're the bulk of why 'neoliberal' is used as an insult. A look at the TPP fight clarifies the difference: libertarianism is all for free-trade agreements in principle, but opposed to the neoliberal contents of the actual document.

> To oversimplify, neoliberal means 'socially left, fiscally right'.

No, it doesn't. Neoliberalism has never had anything at all to do with social policy; nor is it particularly about the left/right political axis in any domain. Neoliberalism is an economic philosophy -- the "liberal" in it refers to classic economic liberalism, which is (in terms of the left/right spectrum) typical of the center-left to moderate right (both the far right and moderate-to-far left tend to diverge from economic liberalism.)

It can coexist with either left or right social approaches (in the US, the majority of the Democratic establishment is both neoliberal economically and socially liberal, whereas the Republican establishment tends to be neoliberal economically and socially conservative.)

You're right, but I think my oversimplification still holds. It's an economic philosophy and it's also the philosophy that the economy/market is a tool to be used to achieve goals.

Neoliberalism doesn't specify what those goals are. It's vaguely "make the world better". That gets associated with the social left because the social right's goals are basically "keep the world the way it is and/or roll back changes made".

> You're right, but I think my oversimplification still holds.

No, your "oversimplification" is an overcomplexification: neoliberalism has nothing to do with the social left/right axis.

> and it's also the philosophy that the economy/market is a tool to be used to achieve goals.

Only in a very narrow, utilitarian sense.

> Neoliberalism doesn't specify what those goals are.

Actually, it does; neoliberalism rests on the theoretical optimality of ideal markets in maximizing experienced utility.

> That gets associated with the social left because the social right's goals are basically "keep the world the way it is and/or roll back changes made".

Insofar as that is an accurate description of the social right's goals, its because the social right consists of people who believe that rolling back (negative) changes is a way to "make the world better", often (though not always) in utilitarian terms.

"Actually, it does; neoliberalism rests on the theoretical optimality of ideal markets in maximizing experienced utility."

Huh? Neoliberalism started as the rejection of the pure laissez-faire policies of Mises. It promotes state intervention in the markets.

> Huh? Neoliberalism started as the rejection of the pure laissez-faire policies of Mises.

I think you are confusing the mid-20th-century (1930s-1960s) use of "neoliberal" with the late-20th-century-to-current (1980s-and-later) use. The term basically fell out of use and was resurrected with a completely different meaning.

The 80s resurrection was associated with Bill Clinton and The New Republic, both highly interventionist.

> The 80s resurrection was associated with Bill Clinton

It was associated more with Pinochet in Chile and the US policy preference which favored Pinochet-like figures.

(Clinton in the 1990s saw the adoption of the new term "Third Way" for something which was somewhat similar to the mid-20th-century use of "neoliberal" -- and quite distinct from the then-recent resurrection of the term -- though the contemporary left-wing social and right-wing economic positions it was synthesizing -- particularly the left-wing social positions -- were somewhat different than those of mid-20th Century neoliberals; though there is a connection to the 1980s definition of neoliberalism, since the then-current right-wing economic position that was key in the 1990s Third Way was the new, 1980s-definition, neoliberalism. But 1990s [and later] Third Way-ism isn't the defining instance of 1980s-and-later neoliberalism, its just the most politically left-wing movement incorporating some elements of 1980s-and-later neoliberalism.)

> > and it's also the philosophy that the economy/market is a tool to be used to achieve goals.

> Only in a very narrow, utilitarian sense.

I think this is the core of our disagreement. Economy/market as tool is a principal tenet of neoliberalism, IMO.

> neoliberal means 'socially left, fiscally right'

Maybe originally. Whenever I've seen it used in a publication (almost invariably left wing) it tends to be synonymous with "nasty idea I don't agree with".

Interestingly it's often antonymous with the term "progressive".

Your definition is probably more correct than mine.

I am just asking, not stating a fact.

Is it possible people are associating Neo <anything> because it sounds like Neo Nazis and it just instantly turns it into a negative association?

I know every time I hear Neoliberal, I cannot stop myself from hearing Neo Nazi either.

It sounds like a good PR rebranding would help here.

I don't think so; at least I haven't had this thought and haven't heard it used in insults for the movement.

I've tended to assume that neo<foo> is disreputable in a larger sense, because it indicates a departure from older, popular principles. Modern neoliberalism in particular suffers from an association with neoconservatism, with progressives damning it as a vaguely social-left reinvention of Fukayama. Both have acquired a connotation of elitism, aggressive monetarism, and foreign intervention that sours populist movements from either side against them.