What an astute comment!

and you are part of the "anarchism"?

When you say "free market" I think you are implying free and unregulated. Perhaps you should specify what are the implications of "free market". As a Democrat, I am in favor of limits, or regulations on the "market" without which there is no balance, or equity. It is survival of the economically fittest. In that sense I favor a more socialistic system. I don't want to put words in your mouth but it sounds like you disagree with Bernie Sanders' "top one percent who control 90 percent of the wealth and don't pay taxes. Excuse me if I am wrong.

@fishline79

Yes, looking back at the original post, I realize now it says "market economy" and not free market. I'm not sure, but it would be useful to know when and who said the quote you noted in the post at the top. You provide quotations but no link or attribution. My point here being that I'm not sure what "market economy" meant to the author.

In any event, I'm probably more into a free market approach than you apparently are, but I'm not a progressive Democrat or even a Democrat at all. I'm not going to go here heavily into an ad hoc debate about socialism versus free (or free-er) market political-economics. I'll just stand by the point that I love being reminded that there is much to be proud of in fitting some classic definition of liberalism.

@kmaz That quote came from Wikipedia, and I think it's as good as any, although it's a classic definition and I base my claim to being a "liberal" on what I and many of my friends in college in the sixties considered ourselves. In those days we didn't use the term "progressive". I'm still not ashamed to use "liberal", In fact I'm proud of it. To me it's more of a social attitude. In some ways, I am a fiscal conservative. Like the republicans I think the government spends too much but it's laughable for them to blame that on Democrats. It's all a matter on what programs you cut. Dems would rather spend money on social programs, while Reps prefer military spending and supporting large corporations.

I do think Liberals focus more on freedom for individuals than Conservatives, but a community is made up of individual members and in a pure democracy they should all have the same "Inalienable rights". Consent of the governed means consent of every citizen, regardless of race, color or creed, and with all due respect, most conservatives don't seem to practice that belief. To which members of the community do I, as a liberal not pay respect? To my mind, "what's in it for me" should be what's in it for everybody. By the way, who's portrait is on your ID picture?

@fishline79 The snag is that this "consent" is purely theoretical , because you are born into your communities without your consent, and you remain it even without your consent. Or did you give your consent to have those parents you happen to have ? To be part of the nation you are? The race or gender?

@Thibaud70 I guess it would be different for each and every citizen to have their own country and make their own laws. The closest thing to that would be pure anarchy, and that seems to be what the Q Anon/Proud Boys/Survivalist/Separatists and MAGA Republicans would like to have and they have all the guns. Won't that society be a pretty sight?!

@fishline79 Not every citizen, but every community should have their own "state" or juristdiction. Like those city-republics in NOrthern Italy during the Renaissance?
What about the Unites States, just a little less united? People can decide locally about their rules and laws, and if somebody does not agree, he/she can move to another state . At the end of this sorting everybody should find the place and community that suits them. I do not believe in one-size-fits-all societies.
Patrick Deneen, whose book "Why liberalism failed" I enjoyed a lot, seems to suggest sth. like that.

@TheInterlooper Good question. You choose. Maybe half want Fascism and the other half want Anarchy!

@Thibaud70 Didn't we try that in the 1860s? You see how well that worked. I think we have to decide what we want, a republic or a conglomerate of autonomous "city states". It worked in India for quite some time until they were "united and subjugated" by the British. I guess society doesn't stand for that kind of society. " a nation divided cannot long endure". Didn't somebody say that?

@TheInterlooper Well, It would seem you're party is taking the lead by force. I hope they know what to do with it. I don't think we have so much time left anyway.

@TheInterlooper Suit yourself. Let me know how it works.

@TheInterlooper Lives in Florida...Obsessed with Oligarchs...Republican...Are you one of Trump's Russian friends?

@TheInterlooper Two out of three ain't bad.

@TheInterlooper "Nuff games. I'm out. G'by.

Mao and Stalin were liberal extremists? That's silly - they weren't liberals at all.

@Gareth you are absolutely correct, Stalin was no liberal. His tyranny was a direct result of liberal extremism. Lincoln Steffens, “I have seen the future and it works.” What started out as liberalism ended in oppression and genocide. That’s what the Bible Belt southerners are afraid of.

I was going to say the same as Gareth. Do you actually think that the Russians were Liberals just because they called themselves "Socialists"? The USSR was a totalitarian dictatorship! Hitler called the "Third Reich" "National Socialism". That's as right-wing as you can get, and the polar opposite of Liberal-Socialism. Marx would have turned in his grave had he known what the Russians did with his philosophy. The Bolshevik, anti Tsarist movement aspired to a Marxist-style government and the short-lived Kerensky government made a stab at a more democratic style govt. but all of that was stifled by Lenin and then Stalin. Socialism, although on the left of the political spectrum , is still not "Communism" as the McCarthy radicals of the fifties characterized it. Liberals are still scorned and referred to as "Commies" to this day in our country, but I have lived under European Style Socialist, Democratic governments and I learned that we are not the "freest" country in the world by a long shot. Virtually the only constitutional amendment that is sacrosanct these days is the second!

@fishline79 The intent of Marx may have been philanthropic but the result of extreme liberalism cannot be denied. I’m talking about what they fear and why they view liberalism as a bad word. The question was “ Why do Conservative, self-described "patriots" so vehemently condemn this philosophy?” Because the end result of “liberal” ideals were and continue to be corrupted.

@TXLerins Get it into your head that 'extreme liberalism' is as meaningless as 'extreme agnosticism'. It would mean 'extreme equality in law', 'extreme democracy', 'extreme freedom of speech' etc.

@Gareth Maybe. ‍ I tire of the "nit picking" In an ideal society, in my opinion, the Golden Rule (In a secular context) would apply. Like Dumas said, "One for all, and all for one".

Depending on what is actually meant by “liberal” Ayn Rand was a liberal extremist, not the Stalinists or Maoists. “National Socialism” is an oxymoronic play on words. Classic liberalism is roughly equivalent to libertarianism. One of its chief polemicists was Herbert Spencer. The progressive movement coincided with the rise of silver loving farmer populism that railed against bankers and railroad magnates. William Jennings Bryan was a populist. Teddy Roosevelt would later split the Republican Party with a more Progressive message. Progressivism was more interventionist than the classic liberal approach championing everything from food regulation and conservation to eugenics. Wildlife management and eugenics have creepy dovetailings.

FDR changed the meaning of liberalism in the US to become a more interventionist viewpoint. Keynesian economics strove to save capitalism from its unfettered self and from being toppled by Marxist communism. Interventions were supposed to dampen the business cycle from oscillating too wildly. FDR got reelected a lot and inspired the 22nd amendment.

These days we have many views competing on the spectrum but mostly there’s the neoliberal centrist establishment of the so-called Washington Consensus with its kowtowing to multinational corporate interests and bullying developing countries using debt restructuring via the World Bank and IMF into harsh austerity measures.

On the left are democratic socialists like AOC, class reductionist Western Marxism, intersectional identity politics (though there’s identity politics of the white nationalist right too), and the various descendants of the Frankfurt School (Habermas being amongst the most Enlightenment oriented).

On the right there’s neoconservative Trotskyists, paleoconservatives like Pat Buchanan and Tucker Carlson (???), QAnon Trumpist kooks, never Trumper Old Guard like George Will, and the authoritarian anti-woke neo-MyCarthyites like Christopher Rufo and his acolyte Ron Desantis. There’s also an overarching push for theocratic Christian nationalism. White people are scared shitless by wokeness and demographic replacement by Hispanic and Muslim immigrants. The latter are supposed to be establishing sharia law real soon. Mostly its a bunch of homeschooling Karens whining to the professional management class about reinstating their lost sense of privilege. I think they are called like “Moms Against Liberty of Others” or something more Orwellian.

@TXLerins Human's corrupt EVERYTHING through greed, wealth, power and control.

@jlynn37 this is why pastors and politicians are the same villains. I have more respect and admiration for prostitutes who with all honesty will tell you that they will lie to you and tell you what you want to hear for money.

I agree that the entire country is becoming "southernized" The South is spreading it's venom throughout nearly every state. They are even changing grammar school history. It's politically incorrect to teach about "Jim Crow" or even that the Civil War was fought over slavery. Yes, I agree with your premise, but not the reasons. We are being "occupied"! When people greet each other in PA, more often than not they say "Hey" instead of "Hi" and local weathermen use the "ch" sound in place of the "sh" sound when referring to our mountains. Trivial but none the less true. At least we didn't vote for Trump, even though he's a Northerner. He has been instrumental in bring southern ways to Washington.

@fishline79 Your extraordinarily narrow view has been duly noted.
Enjoy your day

@KKGator Thanks, I'll try.

@fishline79
After passage of civil rights and voting rights in the mid 60s LBJ caused the racist Southern Democrats (Dixiecrats) to lose their shit and be courted by Nixon via the implicitly racist Southern Strategy. As prophesied on many bumper stickers the South did rise again by subverting the party of Lincoln itself. Now they are using moral panic over CRT and LGBTQ+ to solidify their power as an ever dwindling minority.

@Scott321 Thank you for your support for my position I'm vainly trying to justify to these clueless "agnostics". They're young and don't know history. It isn't taught in schools anymore.

@fishline79 Well, that's downright insulting.
Assuming anyone here who doesn't agree with your position is either young, clueless, or agnostic.

@KKGator You call me exraordinarily narrow, and I'm the insulting one. I don't think being an agnostic gives you some inside road to the truth, nor does it me, but I'm entitled to my opinion. I think we have free speech on this forum. Peace to you.

@fishline79 I called your view narrow, not you. You are extrapolating.
You're also still at it with the false assumptions.

@KKGator I would say "observations" rather than assumptions, but I guess it's up to you to prove me wrong.

@fishline79 I have nothing to prove to you.
Odd that you would think I would wish to.

@KKGator As you wish. I don't know what we're arguing about anyway! People have been arguing politics for thousands of years and look where it's got us!

@TheInterlooper No worse than 45 fooling people into believing that he actually gave a shit about them or this country.

@TheInterlooper They both caused long-term damage.

@TheInterlooper Wait what? Convict leasing and debt peonage were happening long before the civil rights legislation. These things were baked into the 13th amendment. Loss of voting rights for blacks in the South goes back to the Compromise of 1877 which the mid-60s legislation helped remedy somewhat.

Mass incarceration was a product to a large degree of the Nixon-Reagan “law and order” mentality which was a dog whistle reaction to civil rights and 60s social upheaval and then added to by their combined war on drugs. Clinton accelerated it with a horrible crime bill buttressed by fear of “superpredators”. Then capitalism stepped in with the private prison industry.

@KKGator This paints a more complicated picture:
[politico.com]

@TheInterlooper
The war on drugs and driving while black has removed plenty of fathers from families.

Robert Ingersoll the Great Agnostic was a Republican. George Will is an atheist oddly enough.