"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."

But what is minimal govt? How do you measure it?
Would 10 or 20% of the population hired by the government be a minimal govt?

And doesn't it matter what kind of govt one is talking about?
I support and bigger state govt as compared to a bigger Federal govt. And more local government as compared to the state- in other words I favor more local control of local matters.
So, in very rough terms, what numbers would you associate with a minimal govt?
Both for the total govt, and Fed, state, and local/regional.
And do you know what percentage it is at the present.

I would say, the US does have minimal govt if you compared it to other States, but I don't think one should compared it to other States and I think at the moment the govt in the US is too large. And with federal budget of around 3 trillion dollars or more, in simple dollar amounts it seems to indicate this is true.

"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."

We infringe upon property rights all the time, but the problem is when one changes the rules. Obviously there is a lot good things to say about zoning laws, but changing zoning laws could be a problem, and a source of government corruption.
And for example, if someone owns some property and sell it with the provision of whatever [Ie, protecting a beaver family on the property] there is no problem with this. But for govt to take your property rights, by telling you, you must not step on the tulips, this is a problem.
Not that stepping on tulips might not be a good idea, but putting restriction on a property that one does not own, is a form of theft.
[If whatever it happens to be, if it is really important the govt or other party should buy the property- and if they want to resell it, they can then put whatever restrictions they would like to put on it. With obviously, the buyer being aware of these restrictions before buying it.]

"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."

This provision can be enacted in emergencies.
And say, during WWII with rations, I am not against the idea in general- if it's effective in doing what it's intended to do. The problem is these sort of things are always more complicated than most people imagine.
But in principle I have nothing against such ideas- but the key aspect is it's short term solution to a real problem.

I think the relocation of the Japanese during WWII was an example of this. I think it was both, correct to do at the time, and later the apologizes and reparations was also the correct thing to do [though it occurred far later than it should have]. And obviously the entire operation didn't go as well as some people might have expected [a few others might have hoped for worse consequences than actually occurred].

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 think luxuries can be problematic. One could say the internet is a luxury. Some say it's a necessity.
I would say that if anything is a luxury, it's joyrides into space.
But joyrides in early airplanes would also fit into the category of a luxury. [and they led to air travel].
And as far as food, chocolate, is a luxury.
But so is fast food or gourmet cooking.
Body piercing seems to me, to be first, stupid, but it also is obviously a luxury.
Generally there seems an abundance of rich people who are fairly stupid, I can think of worse things for them to be doing other than buying luxuries.

The only advantage I see of taxing luxuries is that people could more choice involved in whether they are want to pay taxes. So, the rich get to choose whether they want to pay more taxes and the less rich have less choice.
But I think it's better to skip the issue of taxing luxuries and give the rich the opportunity of paying more taxes if that is what they want to do. And give them some kind plaque or whatever- as some kind of incentive/recognition.

"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. "

I would say focusing on necessity, leads to more need of necessities.
I think a goal of making more people happy- to let them do practically anything they want to do [unless it directly imperils the life of others], will probably have as one of it's "byproducts" the safeguarding necessities.
Of course, "directly imperils the life of others" can be somewhat subjective/mushy- the application of the golden rule might be more useful.