Pfffff, you're basically saying "you're not saying anything relevant", but never actually contributing anything to the conversation.
Alright lets do an exercise...
Please look at any of the widely accepted tenets of liberalism. Okay? Got em? Keep them in mind for this next part...
Now I will distill my argument into one sentence for you:
I claim this article is a critique of the widespread notion that it is possible to figuratively "pull yourself up by your bootstraps", I claim that this notion is founded on the assumption that liberalism has attained its goals or that it is in progress of that.
And I promise you that if you put an ounce of effort you can see what I'm saying. In fact I'll help you more.
"Pull yourself up by your bootstrap" people are either in a financially stable position or support the status quo. They use this phrase to signify that, through a liberal lens of liberty, you are wholly responsible for your condition, and not only that, but that you should be capable of such feat BY VIRTUE OF the benefits bestowed upon you by a liberal economy/country. These benefits that they claim ARE the tenets of liberalism, such as: the right to private property, political equality, rule of law, freedom of assembly, economic freedom, etc.
Do you see? This is, fundamentally, a critique of liberalism.
Please don't reply if you don't have anything to contribute.
I did, and it's against guidelines to make such a charge anyway.
The article is irrelevant to the point your making. There is nothing it could say, in principle, that would rescue your argument.
Because your argument is of the form "liberalism says X", but liberalism does not, in fact, say X.
Therefore, whether
> the group of ideas that are talked about in the article belong to liberalism, the philosophy.
is completely irrelevant.
> I am specifically saying
And you are incorrect in this.