I guess I'd start with a declaration of principle that tends to apply everywhere: Minimal government. Forget the slanderous stereotypes of the right, nobody in their right mind wants more government than necessary. We just disagree over how much is necessary.

The kind of "regime" that I and, I think, most liberals want really doesn't infringe much at all on property rights. Remember, liberals own property too. This current practice of the government actually buying into businesses should (had better) be a temporary emergency measure; it kinda creeps me out because it really is an unnatural act for an American government.

But I'm also inclined to make a considered exception and say that it is permissible in some cases for the government to directly own enterprises which provide a basic necessity of life. If the food supply is threatened, hell yes, let the government buy the agribusinesses. Same with water, electricity, communications, and healthcare; when private enterprise doesn't come through the government should step in in these critical areas (current realworld examples include healthcare and broadband Internet). The basic infrastructure that supports a society in 21st Century style is eligible for significant government intervention, if needed.

Somebody else on this thread drew a distinction between government intervention in the marketplace for luxuries versus the marketplace for necessities, and I endorse that thought. It's a useful political compromise: Heavier regulation of necessities balanced by more laissez-faire where all other goods are concerned.

I would say that providing security for its citizens by safeguarding the necessities, while maximizing freedom in all other areas, is the formula for government that I'm advocating. I really wouldn't call it "socialism", but I recognize that to the right it's damn near commienism, so I can live with being what the right calls a "socialist". Count me in, comrade.