One of my wingnut conspecifics tells me that “liberty” must be distinguished from “license”. “Liberty”, says he, is the freedom to do, say, think what one ought. “License” is the freedom to do, say, think as one pleases. The former is good; the latter is bad.
The wingnut reckons that doing, saying, thinking what one ought must include obedience to the state. After all, someone has to decide what ought to be done, said, thought so that we’ll know what our “liberties” are and avoid licentiousness. In other words, no individual can rightly decide what to do, say, think without reference to the will of the majority as expressed by the state. “Liberty” means, if I understand my conspecific right, the freedom to obey the state and to live in cases where the state is silent in a manner that does not offend a busybody majority. Well, he can keep that “liberty” and let me have my license. Call me a “licensarian” from here on out.
This is one way that wingnuts can talk about liberty with straight faces. The word means something else entirely when uttered by a wingnut.