A libertarian might well conclude, from reading or watching Harrison Bergeron, that the solution to the problem of a government that acts to level down
its more able citizens’ abilities in order to create an egalitarian society (with government officials excepted) is to reduce entirely, or almost entirely, all power held by governments.
A totalitarian might well conclude, from reading or watching Harrison Bergeron, that governments are quite right to act in the way portrayed therein: citizens should be largely uniform subjects, and should be handicapped compared to their rulers.
I, on the other hand, am in favour of neither of the above conclusions, since both of them appear to have extremely dangerous corollaries. I am in favour of levelling up
the disadvantaged; but only so far as can be done without altering the ordering of advantage within the social spectrum. (Why is it important not to interfere with the ordering of advantages? Because people work to gain greater advantages — to re-order the spectrum — and interfering with the ordering from outside would reduce an incentive for people to work. Reducing incentives for people to work risks economic catastrophe.) The destitute can and should be helped out of destitution, but must remain the poorest members of society unless they work to increase their wealth and advantage. The wealthiest can and should be taxed to fund this, but must remain the wealthiest nonetheless, unless they stop working hard or smart enough to retain this position in the face of competition from others. And so on through the intermediate spectrum, mutatis mutandis. In addition, it is critical that these efforts be carried out as unobtrusively as possible.
At least, that’s my current position.