I agree with tas33, we need to be looking into the future. Consequently, for the moment we need to be taking a more philosophical perspective in order to recreate a more pragmatic framework in which to evaluate contempoary paradoxes. In my mind, this means creating an ideological framework for HOLISM and one which combines `Unity and Diversity`.

However to begin with, we need to re-evaluate what we understand by liberalism. As a starting point I would define liberalism as the universal application of freedom. At this essential level, liberalism means that we are free to do as we please with no constraints. As a result, the accumulation of power becomes the defining balance within liberalism, hence liberalism quickly becomes associated with prevailing hegemonies. In this respect, liberalism can be seen as fundamentally flawed in terms of trying to create a society based on equity since liberalism will always turn on a project of domination or dominating interests, which can be termed individual liberalism or individualism. Hence it will always be the case that liberalism will be utilized by the powerful as a means of legitimizing their own actions ideologically and as a consequence there will always be a need for a social framework which can act as a counter-balance. This we can term social liberalism or socialism.

In this respect the three essays on liberalism can be broken down in individual liberalism and social liberalism However, the current political project, as reflected by these essays, becomes the conflict between the two since individualism (individual liberalism) when taken to its extreme will always compromise socialism (social liberalism)and visa versa. This is because too much individualism creates too much inequity (or diversity which compromises unity) socially and too much socialism creates too much equity (or lack of diversity which creates too much sameness)individually.

The prevailing paradox within politics at the moment is the lack of understanding of liberalism, particularly with regards the two poles of liberalism in that they are part of the same continuum. In the first place, it is not understood that liberalism and democracism and capitalism is the ideological to the political to the economic and each are linked to the fact that liberalism by its nature will turn on `counter-balanced domination` which has to be also reflected in political and economic systems that are underpinned by liberalism. Therefore democracy is inherently adversarial and capitalism is inherently competitive.

Secondly, it is necessary to realise that individualism and socialism are mutually dependent and both are important strands of what it means to be free. This means that they are not binary oppositions as often reflected in discussions on democracy and capitalism but essential features to maintain the balance between unity and diversity. Therefore, political structures need to be in place which discuss, negotiate and find mutual consensus in terms of the balance between individualism and socialism rather than structures which sees them as irreconciliable opposites. The same goes for economic structures. This will include acknowledging the problems with extremes and appreciating that individualism nor socialism are exclusive to the domain of party politics or capitalistic voyerism but two different ways in which to perceive the needs and values of societies. Together they form a whole, hence Holism. Also together, they determine the degree of unity and diversity and so important indexes by which to manage cohesion and well-being. Because Holism is a higher order framework compared to Liberalism, it not only calculates the needs of human socities but the socieities of all living creatures, all of which are important to the continuance of life on the planet. This means that considerations of individualism and socialism not only relate to humans but also applies between species, in that individualism can relate to human behaviour in relation to the collective of species, that being socialism.

This is the politics of the future - one that looks forward to more evolved forms of comunication and understanding and one that attempts to find the inherent relationship between seeming opposites, such as those of individualism and socialism or unity and diversity.