There were no options, just a few absurd examples to give latitude to the final two options to choose whatever one thought was apt, and that is being liberal in my book.
As you know, the word “Liberal” has a slant to it that differs from country to country wherever there is a well known political party that uses that tag, so that is a fruitless path to pursue.
Unfortunately, there is "Liberal and "liberal, and then what I mean by that, and what you mean by the same words.
The word “liberal” has been hijacked from the original Latin root that means “free”, so now it is almost useless to convey meaning. The same goes for the word “privilege” – it too now means what the user intends it to mean, and that is often a pejorative. Some people are liberal with their money, whereas others are liberal with other people's money. It is to the latter type of "liberal" that my post alludes, and the hypocrisy thereof.
People who think of themselves as "liberal" often use a word like “unfettered” to imply that somebody else's behaviour should be fettered in order to close a societal gap. The fact that “fetter” and free are antonyms indicates how useless the word “liberal” has become. All societies are a mixture of freedom and constraint, but many who advocate more constraint fancy that they and a like-minded people should do the constraining – just like the mindset of the two Napoleons, the one born in Corsica, and the one born on Animal Farm.
