This is really what they teach in school and this is what the modern liberals believe.
Business owners exploit their employees. They are bad heartless people. You bust your butt at work all day while the business owners just sit on their butts and collect checks. They are making money off of you and your work. Any idiot could run a business and just collect the money. They make so much and you make so little. If the government wasn't watching out for you they'd pay you even less, maybe 1 dollar per hour. You need the government to level the playing field against these animal business owners.
It takes a lot of time/money/energy to start a business. Most people business owners put up their entire life savings (or borrow heavily) to start a business and have no idea if it will work or not. They don't put up their entire life savings because they had an idea to create lots of high paying jobs with benefits, they do it because they want to make money. Most businesses fail and the entreprenuers lose everything. The ones that do succeed deserve to be compensated for their risks and their success. So then it might work out. All the employee has to do is show up without putting up any money or intellectual capital yet they want to be compensated on par with the owner? They don't have to deal with all of that stress and hard work. They come in at 9, leave at 5 and don't have to worry about the tax man, payroll, regulations etc. etc. etc.
Liberalism isn't really very comfortable with individual responsibility, either for success or for negative outcomes such as crime. They tend to believe that no person is very responsible for either their success or they failure. They are uneasy with success, because in their view of life as a zero-sum game where "you didn't make that", if you have got something, you took it from somebody else.
In fact, they are a lot more comfortable with people in either actual or perceived victimhood and failure, as those roles provide a chance for them to step in (with other people's money) and set things right. Not to mention, victims are a natural, grateful clientele for the cradle-to-grave welfare state, something Mr Romney was stupid enough to suggest aloud might not make them likely to vote for him. Not surprisingly, a mindset so quick to see and embrace victimhood, is correspondingly quick to see business people as oppressors. Occasionally, business people are louts, oppressors, jerks etc...just as any group has bad apples, but those exceptions are used by the liberal media as proof positive of the black hearts of all business people.
Liberals have great faith most problems can be fixed by rules. They find personal judgment fairly untrustworthy. So in a liberal state, the tax code grows year after year, the laws swell exponentially, attempting to redress every wrong, to guide every decision. The messiness, the apparent randomness of a market-driven system is bothersome, as in their book, fairness (mostly defined as equal outcomes) is better than more profitable overall results which include both winners and losers. The participation prize given to all kids.... that's a liberal construct. Liberals would love to apply that concept to the economic world too, given the chance.
PG, after the massacre in New Jersey this Friday, there was the usual catcalling on gun control, but what was as disturbing were people marching in front of the White House asking the President to respond. I was like, "Say what?" Wouldn't it be great if people understood that government was not the solution? I am so tired of that. More often than not, government is the problem not the solution.
I have been going through a divorce, which is a painful enough process in itself. I tried to get my wife and I to settle without attorneys with a do-it-yourself kit and at first she went along with it. She got scared and got a lawyer. The lawyer was slick, promising her the world, offering to protect her, and wrote every awful thing he could about me. She was so proud of herself at first for sticking it to me.
And then he asked for a retainer, a huge one, and my wife finally got it. Maybe the lawyer could get her more than 50% of the assets, but my soon-to-be-ex-wife can do math, and figuratively speaking, 50% of $2 million is a heckuva lot more than 55% of one million in assets.
When you say liberals want rules then, PG, that is a bit of a misnomer. They want an opening into any conflict between parties and use it as an opportunity to exploit it for money and power, and marriage is a biggie. So you may think you have property rights, rule of law, and freedom, but you really don't. If you get married, you are not just entering into a partnership not just with your spouse but one with the government, and the government is going to exploit that agreement by passing rules to its benefit.
In Texas, most folks didn't know the rules of marriage were changed last year. Instead of assets being split up 50-50 as most think, there is a new clause passed into law about one year ago called fraud against the community, and any money say the husband spends without the wife knowing can be construed as fraud. Got it? So spending the money I earned now is fraud if my wife does not know about it. Also, any money that I earn is automatically 50% my wife's.
The splitting of assets is dictated by law to be "fair and just", but there is nothing fair and just about the splitting of income. If one husband is making $1 million a year, and the stay at home wife has one low maintenance child aged 15 at home, what is she possibly doing worth $500,000 per year? Furthermore, what about the guy making $50,000 per year with a stay at home wife with six kids? Why is much harder working wife #2 only worth only $25,000 per year versus $500,000 for wife #1? It is stupid. Wages are being determined not by the market but by arbitrary and illogical means.
It gets worse. When assets are split up between spouses who cannot come to a settlement, the judge, one arbitrary person, makes the decisions based upon guidelines. Who made these guidelines? Not legislators but a bunch of lawyers AKA judges on the Supreme Court. What these lawyers came up with shouldn't be a surprise. Who made the money is of zero importance. Who can make the money in the future is of great importance as is need and PC behavior. This alone shows a lawyer's true mind set: money is not earned but awarded/given by the state to the "more deserving", which is pure socialism. The giving of money based on need is communism, and few know of this and even fewer object.
A surgeon buddy of mine named Mike recently got sued in Florida. Florida has a two year statue of limitations and he did surgery four years ago. So he thought that the case will be dropped because the case was filed too late, and I told him otherwise, "Mike, don't think a little thing like the law is going to get in the way of lawyers making money." He called me a few days later laughing, "Joe, you were right. My attorney said the judge will probably not dismiss the case and 'let the jury decide'." Heaven forbid if a judge ever rules against his lawyer buddies making money.
So liberals/lawyers don't really care about laws as much as how laws give them access to exploit a conflict for their benefit. I said to a friend of mine, "Every time I try to do something 'legit', I get screwed, and he laughed and agreed." Truth is that being "legit" opens you up to attacks from lawyers. There is a limit of $1500 per month when fathering a child out of wedlock in Texas, but it is unlimited when in a marriage, so why would a man want to have a legitimate child? Being legit allows the state to take more of your money.
So I guess what I am saying PG is that liberals don't really think rules are the answer. They see rules and laws as a way of putting on a show of being fair while stealing money and power. People see things wrong. It is not Republican versus Democrat but those in government (or those dependent on government rulings like lawyers) versus the rest of it.