Not "belief," Songwronger. Knowledge.

The one point where I initially differed with Classical Liberalism is that it tended to lean heavily toward what it called a "free market," or essentially unregulated Capitalism. We learned the danger of that in the stock market crash of 1929 and the subsequent Great Depression. Franklin Roosevelt got us out of that with his initiation of regulatory agencies such as the Securities and Exchange Commission and several others, along with his work programs like the WPA and the CCC, to get money back into circulation—not by "bailouts," but by putting money (wages) into the hands of poor and previously unemployed people, knowing that they would have to spend it right away on necessities.

Within recent years, Reagan, in the 1980s essentially castrated the regulatory agencies, allowing the financial institutions to go back to their practices pre-FDR. And we're seeing the results of that now.

So I am very much in favor of efficient, functioning regulatory agencies.

Another point where Classical Liberalism has gone astray is that much of the sound philosophy and economic principles have morphed into Libertarianism—not far from the complete laissez faire stance of Ayn Rand. The Tea Party is the non-intellectual branch of that belief.

So I am most certainly not a "pure" Classical Liberal. They have changed their position. I have not.

I have thought about my political position, and I'm still thinking about it. And furthermore, I know what the terms (Liberal, Conservative, Socialist, Fascist, et al, mean, and something of the history of each one and how they work—or don't work—in practice.

You, Songwronger, are demonstrating that you don't even know what the words you are using even mean.

READ A BOOK! READ SEVERAL BOOKS!

Don Firth