"class", "bourgeoisie" and "proletariat", "the rich" and "the poor" :
When explaining social dynamics (that is, trying to fit them to their ideology), statists divide the population in various segments. They then claim that libertarian systems - and minarchist systems in general - perpetuate these divisions, while statist systems do not.
The problem is that, for such divisions to exist, there would need to be stable states for people to exist in. These states would then represent different "classes" that people could meaningfully be classified in.
In a libertarian system, there are no such stable states, since everyone is equal under the law - that is to say, everyone's rights are equally protected. We therefore have the notion of vertical mobility, which is the improvement or deterioration of condition following successful or unsuccessful contributions to society.
In statism, we do not have equality under the law : rulers and friends of the state are in a privileged control position. This, coupled with the absence of better conditions of life to move into, lessens or nullifies vertical mobility. There are a number of stable states that a person can be in for large periods of time - ruling class, friend of the state, prole.
As applied to a libertarian system, the notion of "class" is akin to that of "race". Both designate concepts which can be applied in a static system, but are completely irrelevant in reality. The notion of "class" is irrelevant because of equality under the law and vertical mobility. The notion of "race" is irrelevant because of racial intermingling and the irrelevancy of facial features to the genome.
Both "class" and "race" are code-words used to divide society. With his rhetoric, the statist is trying to get you to agree with the Marxist theory of "class struggle", thus trying to deny the harmony of interests in a free society. Harmony of interest exists in a libertarian society because everyone's rights are protected, and thus everyone is free to act in his best interest, both individually and in cooperation with others.
Statists, on the other hand, preach government intervention in people's actions, and thus cannot claim such harmony of interests. This rhetoric also ties in the notion of enemies (see point 8 of "Ten Signs of Political Quackery").
