Oisin ...
Thanks for your well thought out post ... it is much appreciated. You and I really don't differ much, if at all. Here's the rub: Your definition of "liberal" and "liberalism" is taken from the original definition. The way you describe yourself, makes me belive that your are a liberal in the Jeffersonian sense. Same here. But ... that form of liberalism is not what is represented by the Democratic Party and their "By Rote" followers like our esteemed member Medicinman. Nope, they are not into free markets and competition. They are into an ever larger and more powerful government. They are into wealth redistribution. They are not for equal opportunity, instead, they are for equal outcomes. In other words, there are two types of liberals ... the old school, like our founders were, and the new school, that absconded with the term "liberal" around the turn of the last century in order to disguise their true agenda. These people are hard-left progressives who lean very much to the side of Marxism. To see the extent they go to, just go back and read Medicineman's posts. Folks like him are into class envy, wealth redistribution, one world governments, a one world court system, a one world banking system, a one world currency and an international wealth redistribution system. They are the enemy of exactly what you stood for in your last post. My enemy as well and the enemy of all liberty devotees everywhere.
The shame of these people is that they do not have the courage, or the ethics, to say what they really support ... and that is slavery. In fact, the real shame is that most, like Medicineman, don't even realize that that is where their final destination would lead us all.
Vi