Yeah, it appears what you were talking about is a common definition (though I had to look it up). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberalism
I got the impression that some others thought you were talking about more classical liberalism.
> And, here's further point and a challenge: no one here or elsewhere
> has come up with a credible alternative to liberalism as I define
> it. Rakesh moans that liberalism qua promotion of individual
> autonomy promotes anomie. But when I say, what do you suggest,
> repression?
You wrote:
"Political liberalism is the view that the best form of government
involves universal suffrage, competitive elections, and extensive
political and civil liberties."
This doesn't seem to go beyond elections and voting in your leaders. It's obviously admirable and an important goal, but if we're talking about "the best form of government," many people here would like to go further. So for example, many here would like greater self government. Maybe a post-state system, or one where the state is seriously transformed.
Many claim that representative democracy is the only way to be efficient... but people once claimed (and I think actually still do) that dictatorship is the most efficient. Sure, for some definitions of efficiency maybe.
We'll probably always give represenatatives authority to make certain decisions for us. But under what conditions? Can we just hire and fire them as necessary? Chomsky recently mentioned some interesting preconditions for accepting leadership (on Znet forums):
"If leadership is delegated, monitored, interchangeable, and
recallable it can be a useful, maybe even necessary device. But
always viewed with a critical eye."
(Incidentally, that's how bosses treat employees -- but I think that's how employees should treat bosses.)
Tayssir