The question was not about liberalism, but about socialism and they are not equivalent.

The definition of Modern Liberalism is interesting, but it sure doesn't fit my approach to being a liberal, myself. I attempted to explain my approach above. I do not expect utopia. That it utterly unrealistic. But we can sure do a lot better than we are in making our country a compassionate community.

I prefer equality plus liberty. Why do these have to be in some sort of oppositional position?

I believe the founding fathers structured both a federal government and state governments to serve the people. They obviously saw a role for a federal government and they set up a balance of powers so that it would run effectively.

I keep hearing Republicans tell me that government is the problem, and then they keep running for office. Weird. As for the benevolence of individuals, this sounds very much like a conservative idea: government should let the private sector take care of everything because it will do a better job. Right. Enron. Worldcom. Quest Communications. Tyco. Adelphia. Halliburton. Imclone. Global Crossing. Countrywide Financial. Bear Stearns.

No, if the individual were truly benevolent, we would not need any regulation or taxes, but we do.

Human beings are not perfectable in this life, buddy.

And, if by the communal state you mean full-blown communism, no way! As I said earlier, as a nation, we are a large community, and we should look after each other. This is a whole lot different. Marx also felt that the process of moving toward a communist state was inevitable, based on Georg Hegel's historical dialectic applied to economics. Marx was wrong. Lenin was wrong. And if you think that I or any liberal that I know desires a truly socialistic or communistic country, you are wrong.

Now your definition of Modern Liberalism is corrected and realistic.

Have a pleasant evening.

Of course it doesn't fit your approach of a Liberal. Liberalism can lead to Socialism. You see in all due respect it has nothing to do with what you think or what I think of the word Liberalism or socialism mean. It is like drawing a line on a piece of paper, putting a dot in the middle. If you are two inches from the Left of center and I am a 1/4 of an inch. You are far Left of me and I am far Right of you. You see your thinking is all relative. That is what is so beautiful of the English Language.

We would all love both wouldn't we. But, is it possible? I do not believe so. Because whenever there is a human involved in anything something can go wrong. Why --- well because there is always someone who wants to be the boss. When you have a leader of any kind you have lost some Liberty.

I agree up to a point when it comes to what the founding fathers wanted. From the time that the London Company in England controlled the colonist prior to 1619 we have been allowed to have some form of representations. But, the early English representations were harsh at times. The first American Colonial Constitution [Connecticut] was written because of the people of the Massachusetts Bay Colony were not satisfied with the rather aristocratic rule of the colony and, therefore, pushed farther out into the wilderness.

Now, in 1662, there was a Restoration and the English granted the colony of Connecticut a Charter with that they received a true charter constitution.

Then in 1688 England herself had a Revolution, but the only thing that it helped the Colonies was the right of religious toleration or freedom. All other "freedoms" that the English gained were not carried across the sea to America. This meant more Government Control from England.

By the next 100 years our founding fathers new what kind of nation that they wanted. They wanted a nation that had a government that was not over barring. I honestly believe, from what I have read of our forefathers that they did not want a big government. Sure, they saw that it was very important to have a balance of powers within the government and that they knew how to set it up to run smoothly. They saw what had happened in Europe.

Well, you can take it any way you want it. But, back at the time this nation was founded. Every citizen that was able to work did. whether it be from an indentured in slavement or a small business owner [mostly farmers]. The families took care of families. The government would help out with children and the elderly, but everyone was expected to work. What have we today? I will let you answer that one.

You can name as many companies that the Democrats have. I mean pointing fingers does not solve the problem, in fans the flames. Just how many millionaires do each party has, I mean let us get real. How, many Democrats works for those companies. I mean if one wants to nick pick then the conversation is over. I am here to learn not to belittle. I am an Independent and I am very critical of both parties. I truly believe both are worthless. They both have lost what their original beliefs were. I can sit down and list the Democrat side of floundering. I was a Democrat for nearly all my life.

There must be taxes, but we must not have taxes on top of taxes. We must not have laws on top of laws. It is like what my father said to me when I told him I wanted to start my own business. He said, "Son, pay yourself first and you will never go wrong." I did and retired when I was 50. Now, you might think that I am a Republican. You would be wrong again. My wife would say I was a good businessman. Another little thing my dad would always say since I was a kid. --- You take of business and business will take care of you. I truly believe in the concept of Captilism. How about you? You can't have that if we continue to down the path we are going with more and more government controll. That is what we must do to this country. We must start paying us first. In other words, stop paying to a worthless organization as the United Nations. Stop helping every person in the world first. How about taking care of our own first. You want extra money, you want a Free National Health Care Plan, you want a Free Program to help the Elderly, Mental and Physically deficient people free? Well, how about paying us the country first.

Hey, buddy, no one said they were. We do not need the government to tell our schools what to teach. We do not need the government to blackmail the individual states because that state doesn't want to go along with a government program that won't work for that state. We do not need the government to help raise our children. We do not need the government to tell us to fasten our seat belt or not to smoke. If we have the right to tell a person to get screwed then we should have the right to correct our children as we please as long as it not abusive. We should have the right to defend our home with out having to worry about being sued by the perpetrator. Now, all these laws are all your Liberal thinking.

You believe that the country can take care you better than you. The Fathers of this country didn't think so. Go to the National Archives and start reading what Washington, Adams, William Jackson, Madison, Hamilton, Jay and the others wrote at that time. One more little tidbit. The proposal to add a bill of rights to the Constitution was at first defeated in the Convention on September 12, because the vote was a tie. The members of the Convention believed, however, that the grant of powers given to the new government would not interfere with personal rights. Can you see anything that resembles that statement today in both parties? If you do give me a source.

I will be more than happy to continue this debate. How about you?

Outside of my God, my family I love this country more than anything and I sure in the Hell hate to see it completely come apart. People do not understand that this country has reached its apex in history. But we can bring it back if you would just stand up and start taking it back by getting rid of 90% of the elected Congressmen/women. Get rid of gridlock, stop earmarking and stop allowing "bridges from nowhere" being built from both parties.

I didn't even write the word "communal state" and I never even implied that. Go back and re-read

Oh, I do not believe one minute that the Liberals want any of that, but I do believe that the Liberal electives would love to have more control of the population as does the Ultra-Conservatives.

Again you got it wrong when you stated "Now your definition of Modern Liberalism is corrected and realistic." It isn't mine, I gave the following source --- http://www.conservative-resou...

Have a pleasant evening, as well as you.

.