Warning - wall of text:
Liberals and socialists do not take into consideration who is responsible for creating wealth when they decide how to reapportion it according to their own wishes. The measure that liberals and socialists use to determine how much a person deserve to have wealth given (key word) to them is the perceived level of victimhood that any given person has. The level of victimhood is determined by any number of factors, including class, race, education, employment status, type of work, age, location, and others. Socialists use class as the primary determinant of victimhood, liberals tend to use other factors before class. The greater the perceived victimhood of any given person, the more they deserve to have wealth given (key word) to them.
The reason why I cite "given" as a key word is because they do not consider it a legitimate concept that a person can earn
wealth. One can only deserve
wealth. They see no great practical or moral differential between earning a paycheck from a private corporation, and accepting a government handout. Because of all these factors, if any person makes more money than what left-wingers determine they deserve according to their respective victim status, they are automatically a bad person (although some leeway is given to themselves and to those who agree with them). If one already makes greater than their victim status allows, and
they want to pay fewer taxes, they cross the line from being bad to being evil. Any ideology that says that those who have high victim status should receive less wealth is evil. The reason why this is the case is that they see politics as a means to achieving the adequate degree of "social justice" necessary such that those who have the highest victim status are adequately compensated. They see no difference
those who have victim status, and not helping
those who have victim status. They therefore (for example) see no differential at all between hanging a sign saying "whites only" outside one's shop, and opposing an entitlement program that overwhelmingly favors racial minorities. This is why conservatives and libertarians are invariably and regularly accused of being "racist" by the left, along with other familiar charges like "you must hate poor people" and "you're just all tools of the corporations!"
This also explains some of the odder positions of the modern left, for example on merit pay for teachers. Accepting that merit pay is a good thing requires acknowledging that people who have greater skill and work harder should earn more wealth, which challenges their entire worldview. Tenure pay, on the other hand, is completely consistent with their worldview, as people acquire more victim status the older they get, and also the longer the period of time they have been "forced" to work. The previous example also explains some of their love of discrimination lawsuits - since people cannot truly earn
a promotion and therefore higher wealth, but merely deserve
it, promotions should be given first to those with the highest victim status - those who have worked the longest. If the person who has worked the longest is passed over for a promotion, that means the boss is a bad person. If the person who has worked the longest is a minority and/or female, then the boss is racist and/or sexist. A third example would be mandatory drug sentencing laws, and mandatory "hate crime" sentencing laws. Liberals can maintain consistency with their philosophy while opposing the first and supporting the second, since they perceive the first as hurting those they perceive to be victims (ethnic/religious/sexual minorities), while they perceive the second as helping those same victims. A fourth would be the position I pointed out in this thread
- Muslims are a religious minority and therefore victims while Glenn Beck is a bad person and a racist.
Other political philosophies can also be explained in terms of this worldview. Moderates, whether "moderate conservatives" or "moderate liberals," share a similar philosophy, but tend to choose a narrower set of determinants for victim status, and tend to allow that skill and effort can increase one's victim status. Conservatives are simply the exact opposite of liberals - they turn liberalism on its head by declaring the liberals' oppressors to be the victims and (to a lesser extent) the liberals' victims to be the oppressors. This is why conservatives are right where liberals are wrong, wrong where liberals are right, and take the exact same [seemingly] hypocritical positions, except in reverse. Libertarians reject victim status entirely, and argue that all people should be treated equally before the law, that nobody "deserves" anything more than any other person, and that wealth should be distributed according to whoever earns it with the greatest level of labor or skill. This is why libertarians criticize business more than conservatives; besides the fact that libertarians are more likely to criticize corporate welfare, conservatives afford business victim status while libertarians do not.
The next post will be something along the lines of "lol strawman." This is biased, certainly, and all left-of-center people certainly do not believe all of what I just wrote, but most certainly do believe most of what I just wrote, though they would certainly phrase it in a way biased towards their own worldview, which is their right. I do know that I am right about liberals, however, since I used to be one.