>Liberalism so understood is compatible with socialism, understood as democratic control over the basic economic decisions of life. It does not favor markets or planning. On that issue it is neutral. It is not compatible with Marx's communism envisaged as a stateless society without law. But then I think that would be a very bad thing.
However, the law and the political state necessarily involves coercion, whether it be a liberal state or a tyranny. I agree that the former is preferable to the latter, but why do you conclude it is a bad thing to have a society that is free of both economic political coercion entirely?
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas