Did you read the entire article first?
Someone linked it to me yesterday, and I sort of gave up halfway through because gaaaaaaah. I read it through now, and it doesn't improve.
The basic problem is that it's treating "reducing inequality" as a terminal goal. Which I think is a mistake: the fact that some people have it better than others is a problem, but a problem that you should try to solve in the specific direction of improving the lives of those that are worse off. They suggest the opposite: family helps some people a lot, and that's unfair, so they propose... banning some of the things that help people, thus leaving everyone worse off. But at least we reduced unfairness!
And their criteria is bullshit. You are "allowed" to read a book to your kids, because that fosters "familial relationships goods", but not send your kids to private school, because that doesn't. Even though they both fail their unfairness test!
At that point the uncharitable reading is basically that they are attacking what they can get away with. "Let's ban reading books to your kids" sounds too much like a cheap YA novel dystopia, so instead let's target private schooling, which is the sort of thing those rich elitist assholes do. Do
you like rich elitist assholes? Didn't think so.
And sure, there's shitloads of things to criticise about rich people, but that they want to give their kids a good education is not one of them.
(the steelman here is to argue that private schooling is a positional good, which only gives advantages to some people to the extent it harms others, but they don't bother to
make that argument and I don't think it's true, so I can't give them points for it)
