I think you are right. It seems the free-market usage of the word "libertarian" has taken over. There are still some anarchists who maintain a socialist view. Here's two definitions I found after searching the web for a while, one from a libertarian and one from an anarchist (the socialist kind, but anarchists say that's the only kind ;). The third is from Brian Caplan's Anarchist Theory FAQ, which tries to be even-handed but is much reviled by socialist anarchists as biased. It's where I first learned of the confusion over "libertarian".
Here at home, though, by the 1940s the word liberal had clearly been lost to the advocates of big
government. Some classical liberals resisted for a time, doggedly insisting that they were the true liberals
and that the so-called liberals in Washington were in fact recreating the Old Order of state power that
liberals had fought to overthrow. But others resigned themselves to finding a new term. In the 1950s
Leonard Read, founder of the Foundation for Economic Education, began calling himself a libertarian. That
word had long been used for the advocates of free will (as opposed to determinism); and, like liberal, it was
derived from the Latin liber, free. The name was gradually embraced by a growing band of libertarians in the
1960s and 1970s. A Libertarian Party was formed in 1972. The term was still rejected by some of the
greatest 20th-century libertarians, including Ayn Rand, who called herself a "radical for capitalism," and
Friedrich Hayek, who continued to call himself a liberal or an Old Whig.
-- from http://www.libertarianism.org/ex-3.html Libertarianism: A Primer by David Boaz
How libertarian is right-Libertarian theory?
-- from http://unseelie.org/anarchy/secF1.html#secf12 "An Anarchist FAQ"
The short answer is, not very. Liberty not only implies but also requires independent, critical thought (indeed, anarchists would argue that critical
thought requires free development and evolution and that it is precisely this which capitalist hierarchy crushes). For anarchists a libertarian
theory, if it is to be worthy of the name, must be based upon critical thought and reflect the key aspect that characterises life - change and the
ability to evolve. To hold up dogma and base "theory" upon assumptions (as opposed to facts) is the opposite of a libertarian frame of mind. A
libertarian theory must be based upon reality and recognise the need for change and the existence of change. Unfortunately, right-Libertarianism
is marked more by ideology than critical analysis.
Is anarchism the same thing as libertarianism?
-- from http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/anarfaq.htm#part6 Anarchist Theory FAQ by Brian Caplan
This is actually a complicated question, because the term "libertarianism" itself has two very different meanings. In Europe in the
19th-century, libertarianism was a popular euphemism for left-anarchism. However, the term did not really catch on in the United
After World War II, many American-based pro-free-market intellectuals opposed to traditional conservatism were seeking for a
label to describe their position, and eventually picked "libertarianism." ("Classical liberalism" and "market liberalism" are alternative
labels for the same essential position.) The result was that in two different political cultures which rarely communicated with one
another, the term "libertarian" was used in two very different ways. At the current time, the American use has basically taken over
completely in academic political theory (probably owing to Nozick's influence), but the European use is still popular among many
left-anarchist activists in both Europe and the U.S.
The semantic confusion was complicated further when some of the early post-war American libertarians determined that the logical
implication of their view was, in fact, a variant of anarchism. They adopted the term "anarcho-capitalism" to differentiate themselves
from more moderate libertarianism, but were still generally happy to identify themselves with the broader free-market libertarian
[ Parent ]