By "liberal", I am not using any of the classic or historical uses of the term, but as I see the word used today by liberals. After all, there was a time when allowing people who didn't own property to vote was considered "liberal". There was also a time when allowing people who weren't of noble blood to rule was considered "radical".

I define liberal as the point of view that states that the proper purpose and use of government is to protect us from the abuses of bullies, and by "bullies" I mean criminals, crooked government officials, foreign enemies, and the private sector, anyone who has the potential for physical or economic power to make us do what we don't want to do for their own personal aggrandizement.

Modern conservatives have deliberately tried to redefine "liberalism" as the champions of big government and opponents of business, a definition that fits in nicely with their own of program of unfettered and unregulated commercial activity, while someone else pays their taxes. They justify this self-serving agenda by claiming that there is some magical force, the free market, that somehow guarantees that no abuses can result from this arrangement, therefore giving them the right to do whatever they please. They don't see economic life as a means of managing and distributing society's labor and resources for the benefit of all, but as their own private playground for personal achievement and self-actualization. I am neither an opponent of business nor a proponent of centralized authority. I just don't like bullies, especially when they justify themselves with this sort of philosophical voodoo.

All wealth is created as a result of human labor. Human labor is much more effective if coordinated and controlled. This is the role of the businessman, or manager, and the actions he takes to do that is also a form of human labor. This labor, plus the financial risks he takes, entitles him to a handsome profit. But we must always remember that the "producer" is the man who does the work, whether it be managing a great enterprise or bolting a bumper onto a chassis in an assembly line. Everything else is just overhead.

What I do believe is that properly regulated by an alert electorate, the free market and the free enterprise system best take advantage of the self-regulatory properties of capitalism, the innovation and ambition of private entrepreneurs, and the desire of the vast majority of people to improve their economic lot by hard work and risk-taking. I further believe that any system, no matter how inspired, can be perverted and taken over by those who are familiar with how it works and who tirelessly seek loopholes and tricks that can help them work around its checks and balances. This is why we need regulation.

The only way we can prevent this "gaming" of the system, is by a "separation of powers" tactic, by encouraging an adversary system between government, business and the electorate that requires input and restraint from all three sides. This is not a pipe dream, this is what America has always done, from the beginning. And it has worked pretty well, too.

Of course, everyone probably will say they agree with me in principle, it's just in the details of how this is to be implemented where we differ. We all draw the line in different places, depending on our philosophy and our self-interest. Well, that's what politics in a democracy is all about, debate, negotiation and compromise, with a Constitution to act as a flywheel to prevent sudden shifts. When people tell me I believe the way I do is mistaken or unrealistic, I'm inclined to feel the same way about them. When they tell me I believe the way I do because I'm a fool or unprincipled, or because I have been perverted by propagandists I'm to stupid to recognize, then I get angry.