Well, the more I think on this the more convinced I am that we are tending to scrunch three dimensions into a one-dimension bag and it won't lead to clarity.

Liberalism does not, in its nature, lead to communism -- that's a whole different thing. Nor does liberalism, as a philosophy, believe in cradle-to-grave care of the individual, at least not any definition of it I have seen. So the socialist ==> rugged individualist is perhaps a different dimension -- degree of organization tolerable to live in. I don't like living in too much organization, myself, by which I mean I value my self determination highly. But that does not make me any less liberal in terms of humanistic values. I think.

It's curious what you say about conservatives controlling social behaviours, such as pornography, abortion, the use of marijuana, etc. but "liberalism" controlling all the resources. I don't see it.

To my way of thinking there are some things that are more efficiently coordinated by a central government. One is defense, another is core constitutional protections against local deviancy, such as civil rights, etc. Any nation-wide program can be helped in facilitation by a Federal government, but that alone should not be the criterion for whether something is or is not proper Federal business.

The Federal government has become this behemoth thing, with people tying lines to it from every direction trying to influence it in their direction. Lobbyists and other devices--buying senators, or using networks of variosu sorts, or seduction with cash, sex, etc. It really has become a bit of a Gulliver in Lilliputia.


A

A