Very true!

“I personally view attempts to use the state as a means as bound to fail - the state does not have individuals best interests at heart, but the interests of the controlling classes…”

Are you not being quite pessimistic about democracy? The state is run by a government, and the government depends on the support of individual people to stay in office. Perhaps the problem’s not that state intervention of any kind is doomed to fail; maybe it’s more just an issue with our democratic structures, which are failing to make the state sufficiently accountable?

I think my experience is of butting heads with ‘liberals’ who seem to think forms of state socialism are social liberalism and are ideologically anti-market colours my views somewhat.

These are the people who call themselves social liberals in my experience.

This is probably because most people who take a moderate view on these questions just call themselves liberals…

I personally view attempts to use the state as a means as bound to fail - the state does not have individuals best interests at heart, but the interests of the controlling classes…

Its true many who claim the label do support monolithic structures- just see our parties unimaginative approach to the post offices. However, one can claim the label and support market-based solutions just fine.

I think the first definition you give, “social and personal freedom”, tends to get used more in the states than it does over here. I suppose in British politics, you could call it “political liberalism” or just plain old “support for civil liberties”.

The second meaning of “social liberalism” is the one we tend to think of as being the opposite of “free-market liberalism” - it’s a bit of a false dichotomy, they aren’t at all incompatible, but you catch my drift. That’s the school of thought people are mostly referring to in the UK when they use the term “social liberalism”.

I’m not sure I agree with your actual definition, though. Public services as an end in themself, rather than a means - that sounds more like a pretty dogmatic flavour of socialism to me, rather than anything to do with liberalism. (There are a fair few people who call themselves liberals, but really are more like socialists, but that’s by-the-by.)

With the greatest respect, I think you’re creating a bit of a straw-man here; genuine social liberalism is much more coherent and much more liberal than what you’re describing. It’s all very well have political and civil freedom, but that doesn’t do you very much good if you can’t put bread on the table, if you can’t send your kids to a good school, if you can’t enjoy a good basic standard of living. It’s important to be free from tyranny and oppression, but it’s equally important to be free from poor education and poor living standards - and a kid born into abject poverty really isn’t free to make the most of his or her potential, not in any meaningful sense of the word free.

Social liberalism is about using the state as a means, not as an end in itself, to provide a good basic standard of living. That doesn’t necessarily mean wide-ranging state monopolies over everything - this is what I mean about the social liberal/market liberal dichotomy being a false one. There’s plenty of scope for the government to take advantage of the power of the markets, and to bring in economically liberal measures as a way of delivering equality of opportunity. I’m not going to endorse everthing in the Orange Book, but it does at least sketch out some ideas for how we can bridge that divide between the two schools of liberal thought. If the market-sceptics within the Lib Dems had treated that book as a serious intellectual exercise, rather than a right-wing conspiracy, we might have made a lot more progress …