I feel that you’ve conflated two things here. Liberalism on the one hand, which extends equal rights to everyone — and left wing politics, which sees state interference to ensure those rights are granted to everyone. This is problematic, because in order to be liberal in the truest sense of the word, there would need to be complete non-interference. Everyone should do what they want and be left to do that. In practice this doesn’t work so there’s a balance to be struck between liberalism and socialism for those on the political left— and it’s a balance that I personally find difficult to achieve. I would explain it as ‘The Government should leave me alone to do what I want, but also protect those people who need protecting.’ This seems like a reasonable position to take — and one that I take.

Where we differ is the failure to hold the political left (your team) to the same standards as the political right (the opposition). There are ad-hominem attacks from both sides. The progressive left can be equally intolerant and unpleasant as the neo-right. It doesn’t matter which side you agree with, both are guilty of using the same tactics. You have done it in your article ‘Poor poor billionaires’ etc, this is taking someone’s personal wealth and using it as part of your argument for the validity of their views. Those things are not objectively linked — unless you subscribe to a left-wing political view and want to redistribute that wealth. That would be at odds with your liberal position.

I enjoyed your article, despite disagreeing with some parts of it. I hope that this comment is taken in the spirit of friendly Medium debate, and furthering the conversation. Something I believe that Medium is very good for in a way that not many other social media platforms are. Have a great day. :o)