Anyway, just a background on the idea of liberalism (from Dryzek) for purposes of discussion:

As befits the most pervasive political force of the modern era, liberalism comes in many varieties. But at its core is a common doctrine based on the assumption that individuals are mostly motivated by self-interest rather than any conception of the common good, and that they themselves are the best judges of what this self-interest entails. When the interests of different individuals cannot be reconciled to their mutual benefit through operation of the market economy, politics comes into play. Liberal politics is therefore mostly and properly about the reconciliation and aggregation of predetermined interests under the auspices of a neutral set of rules: that is, a constitution. A fear that self-interested individuals, even if they are in the majority, may turn public power to private advantage then necessitates a set of constitutional rights to protect individuals against government, and against each other. – John Dryzek, Deliberative Democracy and Beyond

Dryzek goes on to say that liberalism “is actually silent on the issue of democracy“. As long as the objective of protecting individual rights is achieved, for example, via the prevalence of market mechanisms or rule of law provided by a ‘benevolent’ dictator, then that would suit a lot of liberals just fine.

Liberalism and democracy have separate roots but overlapping objectives. In the 20th century, these overlapping objectives led to the merger of both leading to the acceptance of ‘liberal democracy’. In the 21st century, the contradictions between the two is once more leading to the separation of these two ideas.

Sure, Athenian democracy was a democracy! To Athenians of course. The only sticking point was in their society, they allow for the concept of other fellow human beings not being people.

Come on guys. Athens wasn’t exactly liberal, was it? My impression of Athens is that it was an oligarchy, as well as a very elitist society. Rule of the people doesn’t mean the people have to be liberal as rulers.

I was wondering whwt is really your objcetive on writing that piece?

Gees my impression is that it all deals witha problem but no clear solutions at at all.

i really had enugh of polical punditry. I i prefer so much see teh artfihe plan of actions and results.

huh?

patay kang manolo ka! your writing composition critic wants you to write pala an action plan not an opinion column.

Premature jerk offs, I mean.

aww. coming from you, that’s sweet.

I wonder why the ideology of economic liberalism which for some have become the counterpoint of Marxism is not included in the discussions of non-Theists systems as correctly stated above which functions as a “religion”

Hence challenges to this “religion” become a primordial challenge to the state.

The ongoing challenges to all countries now is that the religion of liberalism is breaking down all the other rationales about the philosophies behind economic systems and structures brought on by rapid changes once again.

While that goes on in the more mature economies the religion of liberalism is breaking down.

“People who voluntarily run a risk, betting that they will escape unscathed, are entitled to government-organized amelioration when they lose their bets. Brilliant.” George Will, The Washington Post on The New Entitlement

I was wondering whwt is really your objcetive on writing that piece?

Gees my impression is that it all deals witha problem but no clear solutions at at all.

i really had enugh of polical punditry. I i prefer so much see teh artfihe plan of actions and results.

tonio, in general terms, just assume that the poor, the middle class and the rich all work equally hard. it’s just that the poor were not born as lucky and do not have the same opportunities. government is there to act as an ‘equalizer’. then there’s also the scientific angle. in terms of economic policy, what we are aiming for is an objective measure, i.e. reducing land inequality which is shown (by Rodrik et. al) to have an inverse relationship with per capita GDP.

if you’re bothered by the seeming ‘unfairness’ of this arrangement, the proper time to put pressure on any deadbeats and freeloaders (whatever class they belong to) is after this land inequality has been eliminated because land inequality in itself has been shown to be detrimental to economic development. in going down this path, we are not reinventing the wheel. rather we are following the successful formula of our neighbors (both communist and non-communist).

i’m talking in general terms, as every situation and country has its own idiosyncracies.