"I have already explained the nature of civil liberty: and, with respect to equality, the word must not be understood to mean that power and riches should be equally divided between all; but that power should never be so strong as to be capable of acts of violence, or excercised but in virtue of the exercisor's station, and undert he direction of the laws; and that, in regard to riches, no citizen should be so sufficiently opulent to be able to purchase another, and none so poor as to be forced to sell himself. (Footnote: 'If you wish to give consistency to the State, bring these two extremes as near as possible towwards each other, and allow of neither excessive wealth nor beggary. These two states, naturally inseparable, are dangerous alike to the common welfare; the one gives birth to the favourers of tyranny, the other to tyrants, and they traffic between them with the public liberty; the one buys it, and the other sells it.') This supposes on the side of the great, moderation in wealth and position, and on the side of the lower classes, moderation in avarice and greed.

"This equality is deemed by many a mere speculative chimera which never can be reduced to practice. But, if the abuse is inevitable, does it follow that we ought not try at least to regulate it? It is precisely because of the force of circumstances tends always to destroy equality that the force of legislation must always tend to maintain it."

Jean-Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract

thoughts:
rebuttal of Adam Smith's invisible hand?
based on the idea that a society in which one person is not free is a society in which no one is free?

it reminds me of the principle put forth in feminist theology, whereby a people deny and lose their humanity when they deny the humanity of another. in objectifying and demeaning women, we objectify and demean ourselves, losing our place in the created order...