Michael Kinsley has an op-ed in Saturday's Washington Post regarding libertarianism (leave aside for the moment that I'm so done with that label) which isn't all that bad (Ilya Somin has a critique on it here, which discusses some things so I don't have to).
What bothered me, pet-peevishly, is the notion that libertarians are insufficiently respectful of equality:
A similar flaw affects libertarian thinking about government-mandated redistribution. Extreme libertarians believe this is immoral or even unconstitutional, and even more moderate libertarians disapprove of government social welfare programs as an infringement on the freedom of taxpayers. But freedom is only one of the two core values our nation was built on. The other is equality. Defining equality, libertarians tend to take a narrow view, believing that it means only political equality with no financial aspects. Defining freedom, by contrast, they take a broad view, and see a violation in every nickel a citizen must spend.
Libertarians ask: By what justification does the government concern itself with inequality -- financial or otherwise -- in the first place? They are nearly alone in asking this question. Even conservatives claim a great concern for equality of opportunity, while opposing opportunity of result. And the reasons seem obvious: some degree of material equality as a necessary basis for political equality; the huge role of luck in getting each of us to our relative stations in life; etc.
But nothing like this is obvious to libertarians. They force us to think it all through from scratch. Good for them.
I recognize that he has limited space to make his point -- I assume from the fact that this passage appeared at the end of his piece means that he would have elaborated on this were he not tied to a particular word count. But.
I'm not sure what he means by "political equality". The libertarian view of equality is only that the government should treat everyone equally (at least, that's the big libertarian "equality" issue that jumps to my mind) -- but that doesn't seem to be what he means. He could mean that libertarians believe that each person should get a vote; which is true but trivial. I expect that all members of a liberal society would believe that.
Then he speaks of "financial equality". I don't mean to be flip, but I'm not sure what that means either. Is talking about equality of income? Wealth? Is he advocating socialism?
He says that "the reasons [for the government concerning itself with inequality -- financial or otherwise] seem obvious: some degree of material equality as a necessary basis for political equality;".
This passage makes me suspect that he says "political equality", he means "possess equal political power", which is, frankly, bizarre. Is there any degree of material equality that will grant me political equality (in this sense) with a president, or a senator, or even an op-ed columnist for the Washington Post? I don't think so.