That's between the two of you.
Doug
------------------------------
Yes, but if words are to have any meaning, you can't define them arbitrarily; they must be employed within a framework of common usage. "Liberalism" may be defined differently in Europe and the US. But both definitions denote acceptance of private property in major economic institutions. Socialism seeks to abolish it. There's simply no getting around this. This isn't simply an argument over words. Those who would blur the verbal distinction probably seek to blur the political distinction. They want simply to ask how things can be improved in the present, and tend to regard the entire question of private property as meaninglessly abstract. In this optic there is little difference between what socailists fight for and what liberals fight for. Both, for instance, would defend the welfare state against privatization and austerity measures. So (they think) why all the fuss over names? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20060126/b301a9bb/attachment.htm>