Equality is an interesting idea.  This is one of those words that gets thrown around so much, on both sides of any issue, that it is worthy of some time spent thinking about just this concept and what it means for our society.  Whenever we start too look at meanings of words a helpful source is the dictionary.  I want to comment first on the limits of a dictionary.  The definitions are made by frequent citation.  This is fundamentally a different usage of the word definition than how it is used in science.  In science a definition is an equality (in a mathematical sense).  For words definitions are only the history of usage. 

Here is M-W.com’s take on the word equal:

1 a (1) : of the same measure, quantity, amount, or number as another (2) : identical in mathematical value or logical denotation : EQUIVALENT b : like in quality, nature, or status c : like for each member of a group, class, or society <provide equal employment opportunities>
2 : regarding or affecting all objects in the same way : IMPARTIAL
3 : free from extremes: as a : tranquil in mind or mood b : not showing variation in appearance, structure, or proportion
4 a : capable of meeting the requirements of a situation or a task b : SUITABLE <bored with work not equal to his abilities>
synonym see SAME

The same as another.  On one hand we recognize people as unique.  You can tell your lover apart from a stranger.  It is also probably that you would rank your lover higher than a stranger in terms of companionship.  When people take about equality in terms of social planning however, they typically see people as homogeneous units in desires.  Economics looks at this assumption as seeing people as are alike to the extent that they always want more.  This is the no-satiation assumption.  It seems pretty robust.

Egalitarianism takes this idea (almost to the point of reshaping social order).  The kernel of the idea is that there are some natural rights which are universal.  This is the usage of the word in Thomas Jefferson’s modification of the Lockian precepts: “All men are created equal.”

The problem is that when reason is applied to achieve an interpretation of this statement, the most unsophisticated methods are used.  This seems to equate our founding document with a mathematical understanding of the concept of equality.  It is presented almost as if the theoretician’s understanding of homogeneity could be forcibly true for all people.  I hope I am not alone in seeing this as a corruption of the tenent.

Hayek puts it this way: “Formal justice and formal equality before the law.” (CH 6, road to serfdom).  He continues to build to flesh out the corrupt version of equality as that which leads to jealous infighting.  The socialist who wants to create a world of perverted equality will try to redistribute endowments until equality is achieved.

The most penetrating example of the failure of this concept is in the movie “Enemy at the gates.”  I am not suggesting Hollywood is a reference in par with Hayek, but I think it is an accessible example.   All actors in the movie were equal in their poverty.  There were three principles which rose because of special ability.  These include the sniper, the girl, and the jealous official.  The sniper had extra special skills which made him very useful.  The girl was a beauty and the source of conflict.  In a world of no material goods, and in the context of ever-present death these differences in endowment are most clear.  The official, being an intellectual, eventually kills himself because he realizes that inequality (in endowments) exists.  The sniper becomes our hero as we invest ourselves in his story of survival.  The lesson is that regardless of material endowment there are even sexual endowments which the animal aspect of our constitution could recognize, and our rationality could not overcome.

Getting back to Hayek, he talks about privilege.  He states that the traditional understanding of this concept was that certain aristocrats were “privileged” to use the king’s land.  In this way they were able to extract rent.  In the modern world, privilege has come to mean something else entirely which is directly related to our mundane alteration of the word equality.  Privilege in this case relates to any ownership of property.  In a world of markets, any property must earn a rate of return to be justified.  The rate of return for selling land otherwise would be higher than the internal rate of return for its current usage.  It is the market which has made the old version of privilege disappear.  This new version communicates the desire only to redistribute. 
Having built this discussion on equality, I have to interject the presence of the old form of privilege which is worth further inspection.  The birth into a situation of advantage is not reconcilable with what I consider the true social meaning of the term equality.  Access to education, access to opportunity is essential in this concept of equality.  I believe that Jefferson’s ideas on the subject are way ahead of our contemporary understanding.  He created the concept of public schooling, so that a third party would be able to provide these opportunities (only to the most promising candidates).  He saw society as searching for those with merit, which would contribute to society.  This, in practice is the meritocracy which would reinforce itself with new infusions.  I think of Horatio Alger in this context. 

If we truly could construct a society with high reward for those who strive for success we would be close to this meritocracy.  This can be seen in Basketball.  Here is a game which can be played almost anywhere, with the smallest amount of equipment of any sport I can think.  We have people competing fiercely for the top spots.  Some folks work hours a day just to get a college education (or professional contract), some work and fail, but we get a higher level of competition by the potential for large returns.  The market has dictated an environment where the returns to basketball players are high enough for that top tenth of a percent as to justify a large portion of our population competing for these spots regardless of the chance of securing one.  In basketball we all have and equal chance, BUT some of us do not have the endowment to reasonably expect success.

So, equality does not equal homogeneity.  It is a deeper concept which refers to access and position before the legal system.  This deeper meaning, I feel resonates more strongly.  It is fruitful to ponder from time to time on the meaning of words which people throw around so carelessly.