Rob asked in the comments:
"What is exactly your goal with here? and the goal after that?"
The simple answer is:
I read an unfair description of a position, and felt that I needed to correct it. Note, the position is not one I agree with, but wrong positions on my "side" deserve as much (more?) criticism than wrong positions in the opposition.
I can't find it, but one of my regular reads (blog-bar to the side) posted in the last month or two about somebody or other's "law": There will always be people on your side of the argument, who you wish were not (on your side).
If the argument is bad enough, it does damage to the position, more than it helps.
I am of the opinion that if you are talking in a libertarian echo-chamber, then positions like Kling's original one may help to motivate the base. If that's not what you're doing (and since libertarians don't have enough of a base to worry about doing that) then putting Kling's discussion in the wider world is a net loss for the libertarian position. It simply shows that the libertarians have an unrealistic, uncharitable, unfair characterization of the opposition...and thus should be dismissed/ignored by serious progressives.
Furthermore, I am (personally) moderately offended by any position that is sufficiently confused as to think it's unconditionally right.
"He who picks the questions wins the debate," is a relatively safe statement, subject to only about 82 caveats. I find it useful at times to attempt (unsuccessfully thus far) to point out that the libertarian position, while IMO stronger than any competing visions, isn't winning any real fights by choosing the question. If anyone wants to be convincing (rather than just trying to feel self-righteous), it requires addressing the opposition's questions, concerns, and thought processes.
Furthermore, if someone else has different moral intuitions than you do, your insistence that they have the wrong moral intuitions, and that the should care about yours instead should do NOTHING to make you convincing, only annoying. Instead...the only way to be convincing is to figure out what the opposition thinks, and address those concerns. Well, or play status games and successfully (mostly non-verbally) assert your higher status, which will result in your opinions having higher weight, and thus being more convincing.