About de Toqueville and liberty: It seems fair to say that the context of discipleship/service makes all the difference. Only under the context of "right conception of humankind" does laise-faire economics work--only when the eternal and absolute emphasis is on God and others vs. absolute emphasis on the individual self does "liberty" under this definition work. It seems clear in Isaiah and in the Gospels that the Jewish authorities were chastized by God for forgetting their perpetual debt to him and therefore making their own hearts and governments focused on acquisition rather than equality. Like Solzhenitsyn said (I think), "When people forget God, tyrants forge their chains." In the context of the Church, as it seems like the book of Acts indicates, none should starve, none should be without clothes or love. People should give, not because they are compelled by humans but because they are compelled out of their debt to God or their love for others. To set up 'rules' in those circumstances seem to be counterproductive or even counter to the Good News. But what about the context that de Toqueville was writing out of--a political context that seems to be placing faith in God as a secondary issue? (Arguably the case America finds itself in today.) Can 'We the People...' allow something like laise-faire "liberty"--i.e., opportunistism, selection, adaptation, etc.--run the day? Isn't, as Engles said, the profit of the rich built upon the backs of the poor? Is there not a 'closed' economic system wherein every opportunity taken by a successful business person is crafted by taking advantage of someone else? Or is America truly a "meritocracy" where those who succeed do so because they were somehow more skilled or better prepared? Do the poor deserve it? Do the rich? And if there is not a 100% correlation between what an individual "has" and what they've "earned" where is that difference made up? Is it God's will that some are poor and others rich? Is it the responsibility of the rich to help the poor? Is it the responsibility of the government to enforce redistribution of wealth? Or should the government lower taxes, cut programs like welfare (or privatize them), and only spend tax dollars on things that "everyone" uses anyway, like roads, sewer systems, international space stations, M1A1 Abrams tanks, and elementary schools? Just some questions.