How 'bout, DudeLeave? Oh, wait…
Awwww Lib don’t be nasty.
Hehe 
I don’t know quite how you meant that, kiwi, but Lib was referring to some poster’s habit of reading Mangetout (pronounced Monj-Too, from the French “eat all”, hence Glutton) as “Man Get Out”, hence Dude Leave. So not nasty at all, actually.
And I read “Liberal” as pertaining to social liberty whilst retaining some commitment to minimising suffering where feasible - I don’t equate it with utter laissez faire economics which tolerates suffering directly attributable to poverty.
It really is a shame that tone of voice can’t be typed.
Sorry, kiwi, I guessed you might be being playful but thought I’d point it out just in case.
Awww I like to be ambiguous 
I’d associate his Marxism with what most Marxists say they believe in: state control of the means of production, etc, and I would also assume that he was sincere; wrong and maybe naive, but sincere.
Been done–maybe you noticed Lib’s post in which he pigeonholed liberal philosophy and impugned the motives of liberals?
Lib, you may not have been able to make much sense of my description of libertarianism, but that’s okay: your description of modern liberalism is a hopeless stereotype as well.
Daniel
so Pigeonholing is wrong, patronisation is ok.
Interesting.
furt, re: your last post, I realize you may have gotten caught in the crossfire (to use a wildly melodramatic metaphor). Although I do think that capital-L Libertarianism in the US is wrong and naive, you didn’t come in here insulting my political philosophy; only Lib did that, and so my description of Libertarianism was intended for him, as a demonstration of how such oversimplification could be annoying.
My apologies to you for appearing to dismiss your philosophy; FWIW, I find a great deal about Libertarianism to be very appealing, but I believe the philosophy’s equation of property rights and human rights is a fatal flaw. If you want to discuss this point further, we should probably do so in GD.
Daniel
You mean where I said, “The heart of liberalism is a belief in the intrinsic worth of every individual. Liberalism is poltical courage.”? Speaking for myself, I would be honored to be so impugned.
LHoD, no worries. And I’d agree that overemphasis on personal property rights is characteristic of libertatianism taken to excess.
Not only is that not what I mean, you also KNOW that that’s not what I mean. Why bear false witness?
Daniel
But that is impugning centrism, not liberalism. And you know that, so… physician, heal thyself.
And that, as I said previously, is glory for you.
Despite your best efforts, words aren’t defined just by you; they’re defined by usage at large. Whether you wish liberalism meant something different from what it means today is irrelevant.
You were impugning liberalism, although you disingenuously claimed you were impugning centrism.
If your point is valid, then my point about how you’re no longer sullying the grand name of libertarianism (properly associated with anarchism) is equally valid. The difference is that my post was satirical. Your posts continue to misrepresent what I said, and say.
Step back for a moment and ask yourself whether acting like this complies with your ethical and spiritual beliefs.
Daniel
I’m not defining anything in any special way.
Daniel, I honestly have no idea why you have such a hard-on about this. I’ve explained myself thoroughly, and it is on record. If you want to insist that I don’t mean what I do mean, then knock yourself out. My spiritual belief is that you are God. And you know that, too.
Of course, that’s not what I’m doing. But I’m tired of being misrepresented.
Daniel
Well, I suppose I’ve been dismissed, haven’t I?
Esprix
William Ewart Gladstone would be proud – and I think supportive, of Lib’s nomenclature.
I know I am.