how should soceity according to liberals and radicals developed
Answers
First one, one should probably not think liberals and radicals are the same thing; they overlap at times, but are different measures entirely;
(Social) LIBERALS are looking for human freedom combined with human responsibility… for equal opportunity for all, for a balanced market that rewards innovation and hard work, provides a foundation for individual entrepreneurialism where any one failure isn’t fatal, without allowing for the tyranny of plutocracy or succumbing to the disease of war. It’s a bit idealistic, but given all of recorded human history thus far, liberalism has been making steady and predictable gains in spite of a few terrible blips on the radar.
RADICALISM is simply a measure of how intensely you’re doing a thing, a step below EXTREMISM and a step above ACTIVISM. Think of it like driving a car… a certain amount of it gets you where you need to go, but too much will get you into a serious accident.
Robert mis-answers, in part, by only citing a handful of failures and deceits while ignoring the majority of human history in which liberalism has produced everything you now take for granted. He ignores that in almost every one of those circumstances, the radical leftists (and, btw, being a leftist only means ‘seeking change’ … it makes no mention of what that change is… you need more adjectives for that) were fighting to throw off one tyranny, only to fail and become the next tyranny out of desperation to control the boiling pot they’ve inherited.
Successful liberalism, however, has in many modern examples, produced stable nations, superpowers, a global economy that dis-incentivizes (if not yet has eliminated) wars, gotten us to space, lowered child mortality around the world to almost nothing, increased wages, produced benefits, cured epidemics, and given you the internet as you know it, among thousands of other books