I reject the idea that a person who loves government can also love liberty. One who loves liberty can tolerate government and use it to preserve liberty, but loving government itself is antithetical to loving liberty. There’s no false dichotomy there. We may have different opinions about what “government” means, but that’s another issue entirely.

Your accusation that those who love liberty are not bothered by the inequality of opportunity between rich children and poor children is simply false. It does bother me that some parents are either unable or unwilling to provide for their children. Some are lazy, some are foolish, and some are just unfortunate. I would be happy if every child could receive a great education and eventually find a fulfilling, meaningful career. That would be wonderful. But I am not willing to rob my neighbors to achieve it. That would clearly be immoral. Moreover, I would not say to a parent, you cannot spend your hard earned money to benefit your child because there are other children who won’t have the same opportunity. Who am I to judge my neighbor and take from him what he has earned? That would be claiming power and privilege that I have no right to claim–much like a king.

There will always be poor people and rich people. Some skills and abilities are more valued than others, and any honest person will admit that people come with varying levels of intelligence and work ethic. That doesn’t mean that I want poor people to be poor. I firmly believe that each person should help those around him, and that ultimately this is the only way to find joy.

But a person who uses force or threat of force to impose their utopian dreams on others has committed a far greater wrong than the bitter miser. And teaching the idea that a person has the right to coerce his neighbors to provide for himself and his family–whether for education, housing, or food–is no different in the end from teaching that it is fine and good to bind one part of the people into slavery to support another part.

In the words of Abraham Lincoln in his seventh debate with Steven A. Douglas:

That is the real issue. That is the issue that will continue in this country when these poor tongues of Judge Douglas and myself shall be silent. It is the eternal struggle between these two principles-right and wrong-throughout the world. They are the two principles that have stood face to face from the beginning of time; and will ever continue to struggle. The one is the common right of humanity and the other the divine right of kings. It is the same principle in whatever shape it develops itself. It is the same spirit that says, “You work and toil and earn bread, and I’ll eat it.” No matter in what shape it comes, whether from the mouth of a king who seeks to bestride the people of his own nation and live by the fruit of their labor, or from one race of men as an apology for enslaving another race, it is the same tyrannical principle.

This is both a “false dichotomy” fallacy and a “no true scotsman” fallacy. You’ve defined liberty in such a way that anyone who loves it must fit your particular mold. If they don’t believe like you, they don’t love liberty. Surely you can do better than resorting to such bald rhetorical tricks.

Appealing to equality is clever, and relevant in some circumstances. Individuals may be privileged by the state, and get unequal and undeserved access to benefits paid by the taxes of other more deserving individuals. But privilege is not only state-granted. Children may be privileged by wealthy & well-connected parents, thus gain access to superior schools, services, and reap rewards which they have not earned.

But that type of inequality does not seem to bother “those who love liberty.” Only the type of inequality where the government helps one group. That is important, it is a minor part of the inequality in much of the world, but don’t let that stop you in your crusade against do-gooders seeking to help the those disadvantaged by birth through government intervention.