CNN iReport

Can some body tell me what is liberalism and how can it be used with socialism interchangeably? I cannot see the connection between the two. Would someone please shine some light over my stupidity?

I have always believed that the two ideologies were right the opposite to one another. The roots of liberalism can be traced back to the Era of Enlightenment, when intellectual reasoning became an important approach of government. This philosophical instrument ultimately led to the recognition of individual freedoms. On the other hand, socialism is a doctrine that takes those rights away. Marx’s scientific interpretation of history is the starting point of what it is known as the individual sacrifice for the good of the society; in practice: the state.

I was taught in sixth grade that the world liberal comes from the Latin root libel, meaning liberty, freedom. Long before I knew of freedom, it meant to me that I could do as much as my parents permitted and that no one was allowed to control others. Growing up I’ve always enjoyed liberty until one day when Fidel Castro declared the socialist character of his Revolution. Immediately thereafter, all forms of liberties were abolished. It is a terrible stupidity to relate liberalism and socialism; one stands exactly 180 degree across from the other going on different directions, apart from each other.

What most conservatives call socialism is but a way to express their hate toward social equality, and not because they actually know what socialism is. If they knew, they would not use that term when accusing someone of being a liberal. But in the minds of intelligent people, especially those who have experienced socialism first hand, conservatives’ supremacist philosophy does not go unnoticed.

Is liberalism a bad philosophy? Individual freedoms comprise of all the personal choices an individual makes, regardless of the traditional establishments. And I would submit that we have already embraced that liberal ideology under the Ninth Amendment. Those freedoms are not outlined by the Bill of Rights, rather are natural and inalienable under the Constitution. Of course, some believe that their own and private interpretation of that document ought to be the law, not what the document itself dictates.

And what is individualism? That right to personal choices, that’s individualism; the right to be who you are and live for what you belief, that’s liberty. And if that’s what liberals belief in, I fail to see the harm. Each individual has the right to conduct his or her own life without some institutionalized or cult ideology dictating who she should love and share her life with, what he should think or like, and who he must be.

Now let us examine conservative philosophy. What is there to be conserved? The old principle of selective rights to vote, superiority, and imposition of social rules that benefit a group and exclude others; all in the name of morality. Same sex and interracial marriages are two of the most troublesome liberties that trouble conservatives. Additionally, an array of other freedoms bothers them, but their voices are muffled by modern-time democracy, where people are well too familiar with the reality of when freedom of speech takes a different aim. Conservatives can no longer go on the airwave and openly attack ethnic groups or incite violence against them. They can’t influence the branches of government to curtail the liberty of certain individuals, just because they don’t think the ways conservatives want them to think. Or just because they don’t look the way most conservatives look.

The recent meeting of Mr. Obama with prominent conservatives leaves many speculating about the tone of that exchange. But judging by the caliber and talent of the Man, conservatives probably had had a pretty clear picture of where and how he stands. What hurts conservatives is not the fact that a progressive democrat is in the White House, but the bitter reality that said progressive democrat is a black man and that he is definitely the 44th President of the United States of America. Conservatives have about 35 thousand hours ahead to digest their harsh defeat.

While the opposition to progressive agenda is hidden behind codified talks, it’s no secret that the distortion they use when interpreting Obama’s words for racists is aimed to promote racial separation.

The foremost precious of our freedoms shines in the First Amendment: freedom of speech. We can exercise this form of liberty without fear of prosecution. This freedom is protected as long as the content of the message does not produce crime. We’ve seen the consequences facing someone who uses words to mastermind murder, such in People v. Charles Manson. And if a person can be prosecuted for using words alone, why there is no prosecution for those who mobilize a larger number of murderers?

Speech that promotes the good for the public is good speech. But the speech that promotes hate and violence is rightfully reproachable and should be controlled. Despite that responsibility is of individual ownership, the instigator bears a great deal of fault. That is, we prosecute those who plant criminal ideas on the minds of others. Think of an individual who recruits acquaintances to have them to commit crimes while he participates not, and think of another who owns a microphone to the airwaves. The former is a fisherman with a fish pole and the latest, a fisherman with a net. One needs time relaying on a long process of patient and craftsmanship to recruit small number, but the other obtains larger result within the first few minutes of his rant. A conservative radio personality reaches millions across the nation. That is a very dangerous reality to the peace and harmonious ends we all look forward to fulfill the dream of Martin Luther King.