Theoretically? For sure. Practically speaking, it’s usually easier said than done.
For example, the Swastika itself did nothing wrong, but it’s not exactly about to be rehabilitated.
Agreed, energy is better spent elsewhere than trying to rehabilitate words that have been co-opted by the right. This isn’t like reappropriating a slur, like queer, trying to “take back” libertarian would just cause confusion.
Same with the Swastika, really. It absolutely is a common historical symbol, and Northern and Eastern Europe is littered with Swastika variants, including the one the Nazis used (though obviously not on white on black).
But it’s one of those things that don’t really matter. As examples, modern pagan revival movements can just choose other symbols - any other symbols - to use instead. Not that fascists get to own every historical symbol, but for this one the fight feels long-lost.
In German ‘libertär’ still carries more of its original connotations and has a broader meaning (anti-authoritarian and maybe even anti-capitalist) ‘libertarian’ does in English (at least as far as I unterstand it). ‘Libertär’ might very well refer to an anarchist or a ‘libertarian socalist’ etc, while a ‘Libertarian’ (in the english meaning) would probably be called ‘classic liberal’ or something like that.
While I unterstand that it must suck to always have ‘libertarian’ associated with propertrian ideology, I really can’t say that I personally do strongly benefit from the broader German meaning, apart from being able to quickly and accurately label a complex idea.
What is your reason for wanting to take it back?
If I had a pick, I would rather take away the ‘Anarchist’ from ‘Anarchist-capitalists’… That label is just insulting to me…
undefined> ‘Anarchist-capitalists’
Interestingly enough, Rothbard once recanted, saying he was at most “anti-archist” but not anarchist.