Bruce McQuain responds to my post that questioned his earlier statement that libertarianism and egalitarianism are not compatible. All sparked by the discussion on libertarian Democrats from Markos. Got all that? Good. Moving first to his main point:

It is the application of this radical form of egalitarianism, mostly concentrated in the social and economic realms and pursued at the expense of liberty, which separate us [liberals and libertarians] permanently. Certainly, in the area I’ve noted, we can find common cause, and, when we do, we should exploit it.

And more importantly, with emphasis added:

It is that further inclusion of the “desire of making people more alike in their condition” (or material equality) to which libertarians object because it is an assault on freedom and liberty since it requires discriminatory coercion to implement. And, since it does, it is anti-liberty.

It seems that libertarians oppose the liberal quest for material egalitarianism because it requires anti-liberty practices to implement. Turning then to this critique of the Democratic economic agenda:

How many times do we have to read Democratic laments about CEO’s wages, minimum wages, wage gaps, stock holders, “winners of life’s lottery” and unions to understand their principles of egalitarianism are a perfect fit for what Hayek is describing as “irreconcilable with freedom?”

I can hear Kevin Carson in the background mockingly saying, "Them Pore Ol' Bosses Need All the Help They Can Get." If we take as an assumption the idea that the free market produces inequality, we risk assuming that any inequality we see is a product of the free market and not government favoritism. This is particularly true when "vulgar libertarians" defend our economic system as a free market whenever the Democrats talk about inequality, but are quick to attack existing government interventions in the economy when the topic is something seen as holding back business. But while it seems that McQuain's objection has largely been to the means by which Democrats propose material egalitarianism, he ends with a condemnation of the very principle:

So given that we libertarians reject the very principle which underpins the Democratic ideological foundation, namely radical (material) egalitarianism, is there ever a point where we could work together?

This cuts to the core question. Is the libertarian objection to material egalitarianism based on the belief that the only means is through government coercion, or is material equality itself an end that libertarianism fundamentally objects to, regardless of means?