It is hard to know what constitutes principles that have effective political weight any more. I would tentatively suggest that there are people who lean more towards "liberty" and people who lean more towards "equality". Equalitarians would suggest that there are certain forms of "positive liberty", helping hands, that require some intervention; while libertarians are concerned about the stifling of personal initiative, and defend certain forms of "negative liberty" (freedom from interference) as more conducive to individual thriving than the assumptions of others as enshrined in governments and institutions. Except for extremists on both sides, these are negotiated on a daily basis in all democratic societies. An equalitarian principle (enunciated by John Rawls) would be that any inequalities in the society should be made on behalf of the least well off.
Both of these positions are influenced, poisoned, by the vast influence of the market, which is the template for many arguments about whether liberty or equality are best served by a neutral market, and whether we have anything like a neutral market. Libertarians tend to believe that any interference in the market is inefficient, and ultimately attacks the freedom implicit in the capacity to buy and sell as one wishes; and that a rising market tide will make the poor better off later, even if they are miserable today, so one should harden one's heart against the claims of those who are hungry today in a world of obvious inequality. Equalitarians think that this is sheer hypocrisy by the rich, and that the market is a flawed tool for social betterment, in part because it contains a model of human behaviour (infinite self-interest against all others) that is itself a menace.

I tend to go for the equalitarians myself, unless I spend a lot of time in their company, when I go the other way.

yours,

Peter T.