Liberalism, not to be mistaken with the American contemporary liberal, is a theory of freedom and liberty.
Freedom and liberty go hand in hand with respect and equality, which is *exactly* what most people who are sympathetic to the whole concept of Liberalism fail to understand. (I'm not talking about equality in the Marxist sense either.) You can check all the scientific sources for yourself, because it *has* been established, without doubt, that societies in which there is more equality between people, show more self-development, more creativity, more productivity and development, increased technological advancement and more progression, and that societies in which there is more equality between people, suffer from far less crime and less aggression.
It is one where the individual is free and responsible to pursue his own actions.
Often at the expense of someone else, because all that property you're talking about usually *already* belongs to those who had the opportunity to acquire it, which means that the ones *after* them, who might want to try to acquire an equal amount of property, will just have to keep drooling over what they can't possibly ever have. (Because whoever owns the most money dictates the whole game.) To simplify: It's like playing a boardgame of Monopoly with nine people, but one player *already* owns half of that board, which basically means that the chances of surviving the first round are slim for the rest of the players.
However, liberalism depends on government and one could say it plays the most essential role in the entire free enterprise system. That is, that government must protect life and private property.
The way I see it, the government protects the interests of the wealthy elite while it keeps the rest of the people small. (And wether it does that on purpose or not would be a different discussion.) Did you know that a group as large as 10% of the total population in America owns almost 80% of all property? Now, how fair is that? What on earth does this have to do with freedom in any way?
For if one does not feel safe, they can not pursue their interests. Let me clarify because the political left seems to get quite confused when it comes to the word life, all that means is the right to live safely, without fear of bodily harm.
What a nice way to keep your own selfish butt safe while you're basically denying and depriving other people of their share of happiness by rendering them useless. Outsourcing, automatization, buying up the competition and firing its people, excluding people from the labour market by hiring illegals or temporary workers to work for less than minimum wage. I could go on for ages..
Not a guarantee for a certain satisfaction of life, that is for man to decide for himself, but rather just to remove the basic fear of being threatened.
No man *ever* succeeded on his own, so no man can decide what his life will look like, but I've noticed that you've already acknowledged this simple fact of life yourself a few paragraphs further down, so I think we're able to understand one another.
The second of the two, the protection of private property is a must that can never be jeopardized. I need to feel safe to ensure that my land for cultivation will be safe too. This is where basic laws and enforcers of the laws come in (police and military). They are there to uphold the protection of life and property.
Now you're talking. *Your* land. Not mine. *Your* property. Not mine. But of course, I should generate my own wealth. But how to do that when the market is completely saturated? I mean, how to obtain my own property and my own land when *all* of that property and *all* of that land is owned by someone else already? It's a nice theory on paper, but practically speaking it just doesn't make sense.
In allowing man to be free to pursue his interests, he can actually reach his full potential in society.
If only it worked that way, but I'm afraid it all boils down to one thing these days: Are you born rich, or are you born poor? So good luck with *your* liberty my man, because I see a small group of wealthy people who are stripping other people of their dignity and their liberty completely, and wether you realise it or not, they're using the power that money buys to do just that. I mean, you can tell me to educate myself when it's too expensive for me to educate myself, and you can tell me that I'm free to pursue my own interests when employers aren't willing to pay me *any* more than the absolute minimum or even less, not to forget about the automatization or outsourcing of a *lot* of jobs to cheaper countries out there. (Child labour, slave labour.) But of course you *already* know that I - and so many others like me - won't get very far on our own when certain uncrupulous employers aren't willing to generate a little less profit - but they would still generate profit - by keeping jobs in their own country.
It makes everyone in society reliant upon each other and brings the closest reality of peace to man possible. Everyone becomes intertwined in their economic interests. So we have person A who is the town farmer, person B who is a carpenter.
Not really. Okay, person A who is the town's farmer probably has nothing to complain about, but person B who is the carpenter probably lost his job to big corporates because the people who own and control the whole wood business decided that it would generate even more profit to outsource his job.
They must work together based on the division of labor instituted through the system. The division of labor is a very important aspect because none of us can secure all our needs on our own, thus depending upon others.
Ideally, yes. Realistically speaking: No. (Just look *around* you?) I'd say that the core concept of Liberalism and the free market looks good, but I'm afraid there are too many people out there who abuse their power and monopolize everything, leaving little to no room for other people to pursue their own interests. I totally agree that some people might still manage to develop themselves in the right direction, but you simply can't deny that there *are* a lot of people out there who simply lack the money to improve their own situation, while they *do* have the intellect or the talents to be *much* more than they currently are. Just look at Spain for example. 40% of its youth is jobless. Now, you can blame that on Socialism or whatever, but the truth is that the Bankers are to blame for this crisis. Nothing and no one else.
What kind of world do you live in I wonder? Have you honestly never heard of companies like Microsoft, who basically have a world-wide monopoly on certain services and products?
Don't get me wrong, it would be *awesome* if Liberalism worked the way it works on paper, and it *could* work just fine, but we'll have to reintroduce a bit of respect and equality in our societies. Which means that employers should be willing to pay their employees a little more than minimum wage when they're doing a good job, and that employers *certainly* shouldn't be allowed to hire illegals or outsource jobs to cheaper countries where they use children to perform heavy-labour.
I'm sure my post will come across as a bit chaotic and uneducated, but this is my take on it in a nutshell. I believe in fair rewards for honest work, regardless of who's the smartest cat in town. (I don't believe in zero-hour contracts, temporary jobs or outsourcing everything until *everyone* has to work for a nickle and an apple just because that'll benefit only a handful of businessmen and women.)
I'm sure that deep down, many people can find themselves in that, eventhough they might not agree with *everything* I've written here.
:)