> >
> I do not know how anyone who calls themselves a
> liberal democrat can
> refuse to include in their definition of Liberal
> Democracy some nod to
> the necessity of private property sitting alongside
> the formal equality
> of universal suffrage.
So sue me. Liberalism in my sense is a political, not an economic doctrine. And I don't believe taht those elements require private property. Nor did Marx, though he was no liberal.
> Or are you just a Democrat?
No.
> Liberals do not
> have the corner on free competitive elections with
> universal suffrage.
> Last time I checked it was one of the demands
> articulated in the
> Communist Manifesto.
So, I guess private property is not necesasrily connectedw ith them, hmm?
So what you really meant to
> write must have been
> "since I am a democrat" since the status of of the
> modifier liberal has
> no purchase sans a nod to free markets and Bentham.
Ahh, what I really meant to say. . . . Please. I said what I meant to say. I might be wrong, but I didn't misstate.
Free markets are fine by me. I can do without private property. See the archive for debates on market socialism.
jks
__________________________________________ Yahoo! DSL – Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less. dsl.yahoo.com