[klokkeblomst]

Arguments with a liberal point of departure of how society should be constructed.

[PBVBROOK]

The true liberal society would look much like the US does now. But with one difference. It would owe its allegiance to its own people rather than a theoretical devotion to some pure free market theory. It would put the welfare of its own citizens ahead of the desire to be some overarching global power. Business would be free and encouraged but watched like a hawk. It would not allow job exportation, cheap labor importation or obvious exploitation of the people.

The government would get out of the bedroom and into the boardroom. We would decide that we are only as well off as a people than are the least fortunate among us. We would learn that there is a difference between freedom and permissiveness. We would not allow scum to pump filth into the ears of our children under the guise of free speech or ethnic expression or pluralism or....you name it.

We would decide to take care of one another when we are ill. We would offer a helping hand to those in need and expect them to try like the devil to help themselves. We would have the courage to take the help away from those who won't help themselves.

We would have a powerful military that can defend us and thwart the ambitions of those who would harm out people. But it would be our military not the UN's. We would mind our own business until it became out business.

We would be kind.

[Huntster]

......The government would get out of the bedroom and into the boardroom. We would decide that we are only as well off as a people than are the least fortunate among us........

Obviously, government can screw folks in places other than the bedroom, and that is most certainly true in the wallet.

[Fisher Ames]

Society cannot be constructed.

[foilist13]

Fisher Ames, Amen.

Still to your point, theoretically if you could construct a liberal society it would look much like what PBVBROOK has described. Wether or not it would work is much more up for debate.

[Karl_Bonner_1982]

We would learn that there is a difference between freedom and permissiveness. We would not allow scum to pump filth into the ears of our children under the guise of free speech or ethnic expression or pluralism or....you name it.

Just what exactly is the difference between the two? And what kind of filth are you referring to?

The problem with these kinds of concerns is that they can very easily be hijacked by busybodies with a narrow ideological agenda. Who should decide what content is appropriate for what ages? It seems that whenever we honestly try to do something about media content it quickly turns into a witch hunt against sex or even "witchcraft" itself.

I'm all for holding the line against kids' exposure to gratuitous violence. But as soon as they start to go after nudity or homosexuality or do anything else that indicates a puritanical agenda, they quickly lose my support. We have to come up with a better mechanism that will go after the stuff that most of us agree is harmful to children - while ignoring stuff that has more to do with culture wars than protecting children.