Its first use (politically) was in a letter to Proudhon explicitly said he wasn’t.
…vous (Proudhon) semblez jouir de toutes les lubricités de la convoitise à déshabiller vos belles victimes sur le papier du supplice et à les flageller de vos invectives. Anarchiste juste-milieu, libéral et non LIBERTAIRE, vous voulez le libre échange pour le coton et la chandelle, et vous préconisez des systèmes protecteurs de l’homme contre la femme…
Proudhon was not a libertarian. He was a mutualist and a socialist.
He’s a mutualist before he is anything else.
He’s a small d democrat. He is pro-state.
I’m all for being open minded, accommodating, forming alliances, etc. But I am not ok with the notion that a monopoly, nationalist, night watchman state is compatible with genuine liberty and truly free markets. It isn’t. Voting isn’t freedom.
Your insinuate that I said that I have never interpreted anything. But actually it is clear I am talking about blog posts only which I even contrast to poetry.
So unless you were making the unlikely assumption that I have never read anything besides blogs (such as poetry) you already had your answer all along.
Like he said. Proudhon was a libertarian. Of course, the term originated as a philosophy opposing Mutualism, but what can you do?