Charlie Stross, whose opinion of libertarianism is not famously high, has a good rant inspired by attempts to suppress the Occupy... movement, and solicits political responses from his readers. Lively discussion follows in the comment section. In the course of it, I finally got around to spelling out exactly why I no longer buy the idea that liberty and vast economic inequality can long live together:
>So what harm can it possibly do me that they're richer than I am?
None - in a society where rent-seeking has become a marginal dumb criminal activity, rather than the major basis of power and authority. First, catch your rabbit!
My extended argument here - the heading also links back to the full comment that elicited it.Shorter me: even in terms of purely negative liberty, relative poverty lacks the power to defend its rights, and freedoms that can't be defended are only aspirations at best. Therefore, lovers of liberty must find ways to spread wealth too evenly for anybody to forge crowns from it, or else resign themselves to howling for the Moon through all the age-long night.