Classical liberalism....

[Arizal1]

You don't get my point, my point is that private property is bad, if you ever read Tocqueville, you would notice he likes America but he think there is no aristocracy, and wealthy inequality was not that bad;. his observation where only theory, but this is the critic of marxists, why private property is just bad. It create a new aristocracy and this is not compatible with democracy
Maybe you need to ask youselves a question, does free-market must be always be with capitalism ? the answer for me is no.

Well, private property is a way to allocate wealth. It must certainly be regulated, but I don't see it as inherently bad, not more than the fact that we are all individuals and want to make different choices about our lifes.

It would be possible to envision a world in which there would be rules about maximal and minimal income, limits to gifts to political parties, a welfare State making sure that nobody is needy and rules regulating the market in order to prevent it to take a turn for the worst and still using private property. I wouldn't at all be sad to live in such a world, where I could still enjoy the possession of the things I choose to possess while at the same time habing reassurances that no matter what, I will not go below a proper living situation.

Now, about aristocracy, I belive you are talking about how much wealth can influence what is going on in a society, both legally by people buying things and illegally by people bribing others in order to obtain what they want. The first way to interact with the others doesn't bother me that much, especially if we could make a limit to the accumulation of wealth, as Locke wanted. The second one is an issue of justice and has to do with the fact that our system isn't perfect. I believe it would also happen in a socialist state (I didn't say communist because communism is a dream), in which people in power would give themselves better life conditions than their fellow citizens (as lawyers, politicians and doctors do right now).

socialism does not equal dictatorship of freedom of choice but very active redistribution of wealth and power, as i said high, a Communist free market society is possible.

I'm very interested to know how it can be, and what difference it would have to my ideal society. If what you said is true - that socialism is only about active redistribution of wealth and power - then I have no problem against it. I don't like private property to the point of not wanting for the government to collect taxes which will allow it to function and give services. The only problem I see with this vision is international competition. As long as there will be different countries with their own sovereign programs, it will be very difficult to make things like minimum income or maximum salary work. Because of (unchecked) competition between countries, there will be brain exodus and fiscal havens as soon as a country will try to improve its redistributive measures.

[Darkylightytwo]

You don't get my point, my point is that private property is bad, if you ever read Tocqueville, you would notice he likes America but he think there is no aristocracy, and wealthy inequality was not that bad;. his observation where only theory, but this is the critic of marxists, why private property is just bad. It create a new aristocracy and this is not compatible with democracy
Maybe you need to ask youselves a question, does free-market must be always be with capitalism ? the answer for me is no.

Well, private property is a way to allocate wealth. It must certainly be regulated, but I don't see it as inherently bad, not more than the fact that we are all individuals and want to make different choices about our lifes.

Private Property is not personal property. private property is very bad, while personal has no consequence.

It would be possible to envision a world in which there would be rules about maximal and minimal income, limits to gifts to political parties, a welfare State making sure that nobody is needy and rules regulating the market in order to prevent it to take a turn for the worst and still using private property. I wouldn't at all be sad to live in such a world, where I could still enjoy the possession of the things I choose to possess while at the same time having reassurances that no matter what, I will not go below a proper living situation.

private property is not possession of a pc, private property is possession of the work of someone because of your position within the company, there is a strength rapport in private property, which is why private property, you are talking about personal property, which has no reason to be abolished. Private property and personally are different concept. The world you actually describe could only use personal properties.

but I do agree that maximum and minimum income should rules and by classical liberal point of view, they are no limit to the free market. After all, a good state justify its existence by good rules to protect workers, to protect the poor, animals and the environment.

Now, about aristocracy, I believe you are talking about how much wealth can influence what is going on in a society, both legally by people buying things and illegally by people bribing others in order to obtain what they want. The first way to interact with the others doesn't bother me that much, especially if we could make a limit to the accumulation of wealth, as Locke wanted. The second one is an issue of justice and has to do with the fact that our system isn't perfect. I believe it would also happen in a socialist state (I didn't say communist because communism is a dream), in which people in power would give themselves better life conditions than their fellow citizens (as lawyers, politicians and doctors do right now).

No, aristocracy is a system that gives power to wealthy and immobilize the society, the poor work for the wealthy who have easy lives,

Then again, is limitation of wealth a limit to free-market ? no, it could be a rules that assure everyone can find their place by limiting the power of the individuals, assuring no one can obtain too much, if government should not have too power, why individual should not be limited, government are not made of aliens, but of humans.

socialism does not equal dictatorship of freedom of choice but very active redistribution of wealth and power, as i said high, a Communist free market society is possible.

I'm very interested to know how it can be, and what difference it would have to my ideal society. If what you said is true - that socialism is only about active redistribution of wealth and power - then I have no problem against it. I don't like private property to the point of not wanting for the government to collect taxes which will allow it to function and give services. The only problem I see with this vision is international competition. As long as there will be different countries with their own sovereign programs, it will be very difficult to make things like minimum income or maximum salary work. Because of (unchecked) competition between countries, there will be brain exodus and fiscal havens as soon as a country will try to improve its redistributive measures.[/quote]

You place all humans in a boxes and say, this is how going they are going to act, because of many factors, like nationalist, so matter how much you player your player in the NFL, I am still going to watch the CFL, and hate then NFL because I am proud Canadian, unless some others.

You seem to say all humans desires only power and wealth, but that is incorrect, if this was true, we would like robots, but at least, we are not. and this is why many ideologies fails, because they say all humans are like this and this is never true.

Yeah Comparing CFL and NFL is not the best example, but the brain does not always bring wealth, especially if we develop a strong public and reward the good work. Actually, you have better chance to become rich through a good marriage then through hard work. I realise this discussion but I wanted to edit my post.

[Siggon Kristov]

A free people in not necessary one who think in the left, but one who do not need any ideology to understand what is going on.

I agree with you here, and it is in line with things that I have said in this thread:

I speak not of ideological representatives anyway; I'm speaking of representatives of people. The question of whether someone is liberal or conservative wouldn't concern the system. It's about councillors representing districts/neighbourhoods, etc. - representatives would be for geographic areas or communities so that everyone has a specific representative responsible for him/her (like we have in Jamaica or Canada now with single-member constituencies).