Why am I So Much Against the Liberals?

Why am I so much against the liberals? What is so wrong in their asserted desire to share the wealth, to make the government responsible for health care and welfare and so on?
I was brought up in a nationalistic home. An environment that valued the individual's proper behavior as a representative of the nation and its perceived respected status. Also we valued the individual's intellectual and creative abilities and achievements. I was exposed to the socialistic ideas, after all they ruled the place. There was a strange discrepancy between the customary animosity towards the communist Soviet Union and the admiration towards same Soviet Union that was perceived when reading old socialist children magazines (my uncle was a socialist and as a child I spent many summers in his farm reading those volumes of old socialist children magazines.)
But all these were only the backdrop for the real introduction to the various philosophies and “isms” during my adolescence and early adulthood. I tried to read the Communist Manifesto; it bored me with its pompous language and clear illogic. I tried to read ‘Narcis und Goldmond’ by Herman Hesse and did not even bother to finish the second chapter, rejecting the boredom and stupidity of the implied philosophy. Did not like any of the existentialists, Kant, Spinoza or any other of the famous philosophers. I naturally abominated Plato and so on.
But independently of these famous philosophers and their promoters, I discovered two people who I believe were the greatest philosophers of the twentieth century. Both of them are not famous, not considered to be philosophers, and did not write any of the ‘Critique of Pure Reason’. Their works are much simpler, easier to understand and relevant to reality. Yet they are neglected by most, down looked upon. But they were the carriers of the truth.
These two British philosophers were B. H. Liddell-Hart and C. Northcote Parkinson.
From Liddell-Hart I learned two things, well, not exactly learned, but was encouraged to emphasize. The first thing is obviously Strategy. No I am not good in that in my personal life and would not try to take the place of any general. But I recognize the need to develop strategy and meta-strategy, the need to attack where you are the least expected; the need to truly understand the foes and so on. But the most important thing is the absolute need to adhere with the truth. There is no value that is greater then the truth and the honesty that come with it. And this truth and honesty goes with C. Northcote Parkinson.
Those that heard about him, usually heard about his first law: "work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion." The implications of this law are deep and far reaching, yet this law is not taught in any university or college. No MBA program even mentions this law in passing. This law has been driven to oblivion. The reason to that phenomenon is the unholy agreement between the super rich and the liberals to oppress and enslave the rest of society. All this is not obvious from reading the chapter about that law or even when one notice that this law is being ignored. It becomes much more obvious by reading Parkinson much more neglected masterpiece “The Law and the Profit” in which he explain in depth his second law “Expenditure rises to meet income.” Here, Parkinson describes the modern welfare state and its exorbitant expenditure, made possible by oppressing the middle class by taxing it to death and by mortgaging the future by converting private (and eventually public [as is the case in New Jersey]) capital to spending money and spending the money on all those entitlement programs meant for people who vote for those programs but do not pay for them.
Make no mistake, the super rich liberals say that they are in favor of more taxes but they have the means to avoid them; the rest of us don’t!