He who believes he has the right to choose to believe that which is other than the truth. You can quote me if you like.

I would if I knew what you meant.

Before we say what Liberalism is, we must say what it is not. Liberalism is not simply those political ideas held by the people and political parties we today call “liberal.” In the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries, Liberalism had a much broader meaning. Indeed, many of those we call “conservative” in our time would have been called “Liberals” in those earlier centuries.

Liberalism, as it developed in the 17th and 18th centuries, was a political and social philosophy that emphasized the freedom of individuals to follow their own desires in their social, religious, and economic life. To the Liberal way of thinking, human beings by nature are individuals who live unconnected to anyone and have no obligation to obey anyone. Since by nature, every person is born completely free, every person is equal to every other person. In the state of nature, no one has a superior who may tell him what to do.

"Liberal" as used here has a specific meaning and not what you willy-nilly decide it is. The pickle gave you a starting point. Maybe try learning a bit about it before you continue to belabor your misguided point.

I was attacked again by the Pikel.

Right. And when talking about Catholic social teaching it is necessary to understand the words used as the Church does. The Church does not have "400 different definitions" it has the one that the Pickle pointed out and you stubbornly refuse to acknowledge.

Oh and you are completely backwards. We should not look at a moral issue through American political lenses and then consult the Church. We need to consider what the Church says and judge the political approaches on how well they measure up to the truth as taught by the Church.

The early Church was holy, but was also Socialist -- and went bankrupt.

IMHO, minimum wage laws as they currently exist--state-level laws--are unjust for a variety of reasons. The principal one is that living wages are far too location-dependent to be legislated at such a high level. IOW, they violate subsidiarity. But they are also wrongheaded for other reasons, among them what you mention. That is, they basically provide cover for employers. "Hey, we pay an agreed-upon, state-mandated wage. If you need more, take it up with your congressman!" That kind of thing.

Ultimately, the Church is against wage slavery and holds up wages not as a good thing in themselves, but as a tool the workman can use to save up and become economically free by coming to own his own means of production: by ceasing to be an employee, that is. Very hard for the post-industrial-revolution mindset to even fathom.

Stop attacking me, bro.

Where may you find what in Catholic social teaching? If you mean the Church's teaching on subsidiarity, then the answer is: everywhere, for subsidiarity is one of the foundational notions of CST. If you mean the point that state-level (or, more obviously, federal-level) laws mandating a certain wage for the whole relevant area, then you won't find it as such in CST. Note that your quoted section begins with "IMHO," which is to say that I am applying the principle to the particular situation.

This is an odd claim.

32All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. 33With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all 34that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.
36Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which means “son of encouragement”), 37sold a field he owned and brought the money and put it at the apostles’ feet.