I have found that several ideologies can be deflated by simply asking the right questions to which the adherents must be forced to think about what they believe in order to answer those questions. This is true of secular as well as traditional religions and this approach is useful in regards to liberalism.

One persistent tenet lately of liberals is their belief that there is too much wealth concentrated among "the rich" which could mean anything, of course (millionaires, those making over $250,000 a year, or whatever). The inequality between those who have too much and those who have too little is the problem and what is necessary is for liberals in government to narrow the gap between them even though the gap cannot ever be fully narrowed. (that's apparently what Obama meant by his comment to Joe the Plumber that he wanted to spread the wealth around - apparently the rich have surplus money they don't need and hence need it taken from them to give to those who don't have it irregardless of whether anybody has a right to take it from them).

My first question to them is this: "Should there be a centralized powerful entity like a governmental person or body that decides how much money or wealth each individual should have?" This question cuts to the chase and most likely they will say "no." They will admit they don't want anybody deciding how much each person has and this is because, secretly, they want a government to take, through taxes, wealth and money from others to give to them, but not take from them to give to others.

When they say "no" to your question, the next step is to ask them why it is ok to take from others to give to them but not take from them to give to others. They most likely will have no response and recognize the unfairness of what they are admitting to. At this point you can suggest to them that they are as greedy as the corporate people they are criticizing because they want to take from others but not give back just as much as CEOs (perhaps) might want to hoard the money they earn. These liberals you are confronting might point out that, yes, people like me want as much wealth and money as we can and are greedy also. At which point I would checkmate them and point out that, yes, I want that but I am willing to do something else to bring myself up to the rich level (like take on more responsibilities at work and contribute to my employer's well being) not ask a government agency to take from the wealthy to give to me so I can get to where they are.

how about abortion - another liberal rallying point? One question I would pose to whoever is pro choice is this: "Suppose that your mother at one point while carrying you decided she wanted to end her pregnancy. and someone wanted to prevent her from doing so. how, theoretically, would you defend your mother's decision to abort you?" This, as far as I know, is a question that has never been asked of anybody who is pro-choice and, again, with my take-the-weath question above, forces the liberal to think. The pro-choice always think in terms of their choices and the choices of people they know but what if they were the recipient of an abortion? The fetus, they say, is a blob and not a person, but it would be hard for them to think of themselves, while they were in the womb, as a blob and not a person. They most likely would not want to grant their mothers to right to abort them.

At this point the reader should see a familiar pattern in both of these instances. As far as taxing the rich, they demand from others to be given to them but not from them to be given to others. As far as abortion, they demand their choices be respected and the life of others must be sacrificed for that end, but not their lives be sacrificed to further another's freedoms. The pattern is one of selfishness despite it portrays itself as respect for the life and freedom of others.

How about homosexual marriage? Much has been written about homosexuality in the public sphere and many liberals want homosexuals be given the right to marriage, but one might first want to ask them some questions. "what is it about the nature of marriage that homosexuals think they can participate in?" Heterosexual marriage, as far as I know, is about two individuals whose genitals fit in a certain way for pleasurable ends and procreative ends and, even though their act does not end in procreation, they are using them in the way that they would be used for that purpose. Homosexual sex knows no such nature and is not procreative. In that sense, there is nothing in the nature of homosexual sex that makes it marriageable. At which point the liberal will raise the issue of "rights" or something else which has no bearing on this debate.