If you think it has one precise meaning, you don't either. It's primarily a catch-all in the US for a variety of views under the umbrella of the word. Alternatives include people who use archaic references.
In my opinion, at its core one area includes the importance of indivudual freedom to be free of coercion by powerful forces acting in their own interest against the broader society.
(Before right-wingers try to twist that, that's in contrast to the government in a democracy using coercion for a public good, such as taxing people to pay for cancer research or the police).
The thing is, right-wingers wil protest that they're against tranny too (at least over themselves, not quite as concerned about others), so they won't buy that much as a definition.
Indeed, everyone is against tyranny, but many sort of aren't when it benefits them and all theyre asked to do is accept a cover story and turn a blind eye, not actually condone it. Nudge nudge, wink wink.
All I ask of the righties who want to argue this point is for them to point to their history of posts condeming the US-backed repressionin countless places - Saudi Arabia, Reagan's Central America, etc.
