Today: Iraq

[Occhidiangela]

Liberalism has changed, and some of its early tenets are indeed embedded in our current system -- all Western Systems. That is why I spelled out the elitists for a category, since there is a tension inherent in liberalism: the level of and balance between individual sovereignty and State paternalism.

Point: Free education does not exist, publicly funded education does. Now the question is, under what framework, under what assumptions, and under what limitations?

Liberalism assumes non-victim status for the individual, while elitist-Socialism does not. Liberating man from mionarchy only to have him dominated by the State, which is the tool of other wealthy elites than ancien regimeroyal families and organized religion, is small progress: ask Solzhinytzen.

So, on one point we seem to agree, in that people currently calling themselves liberals, and some tarring others as Liberals perjoratively, do not necessarily, "get" how the 19th century Liberalism has beem embedded in current Western social models, left and right.

Liberalism is not Anarchy, nor is it Libertarianism.

EDIT: spelling was awful, I added a word or two for clarity