Conservatives, libertarians, and self described classical liberals maintain that modern liberals are socialists or social democrats because they support a regulated marketplace and welfare. This view is wrong because it overlooks how liberals from the mid nineteenth century to the early twentieth century onward sought to understand individual liberty, its preservation, and expansion amid the specter of deprivation, periodic crisis, and concentrated private power associated with urban industrial capitalism. In Britain the New Liberals like Thomas Hill Green, J.A. Hobson, and Leonard T. Hobhouse were central to this process. In America the progressives like Herbert Croly and Walter Weyl led the way. The problem with critics of liberalism is to see private property, small government, and non intervention in the economy as values and goals of liberalism rather than means. Individual liberty and the equal right to it is core value and goal of liberalism. For generations in reaction to the abuses and inefficiencies related to monarchy and mercantilism liberals rightly insisted on small government and non intervention in the economy and society ensured liberty. Industrial capitalism with monopolies, large corporations, and problems meant for large numbers of poor workers in cities they were really not free. Furthermore these concentrations of private economic power were seen a threat to political freedom and democracy to which liberty depends on. Liberals in Europe and America knew this. They slowly embraced a regulated market economy along with social welfare to ensure liberty and prosperity for all. This allowed them to preserve private property for profit, markets, and competition. This was consistent with liberal values and goals. It also headed off socialists who would have got rid of capitalism and individual liberty with it. Liberalism is always changing and rethinking what must be done to ensure and expand individual liberty. Critics who call liberals socialists or say they have betrayed the tradition are wrong.