It is difficult to find a seemingly more unobjectionable term that “equality” is the modern West and America. Equality is often understood to be an unqualified good and part of the American creed: “all men are created equal.”

The main reasons politicians love “equality” are because it is supposedly unquestionable in its obvious justice, slippery in definition, and unachievable. Consider the shifting definitions. “Equality” can mean equality before the law or rule of law—as Thomas Jefferson and others used it—which actually is an limitedly achievable and just ideal, but then the same word can be used to designate egalitarianism (sometimes distinguished by degrees: “equity,” “equality of outcome,” “equality of opportunity”).

Rule of law or equality before the law (sometimes even called “equality of opportunity,” which is actually different from rule of law) is incompatible with egalitarianism. Rule of law means that the law and legal system—though imperfect in providing justice—seek legal impartiality and judge people according to the same standard, not unduly favoring or disfavoring certain individuals. Admittedly, this ideal is never reached by imperfect and limited humans, but it is just and achievable by degree.

Egalitarianism—whether called “equity,” “equality,” “equality of outcome,” or even “equality of opportunity”—is the opposite of rule of law or impartial equality before the law. Egalitarianism necessitates treating unequal people unequally with the hopes of reaching a more equal result. Choosing egalitarian equalism—enforced by the state—results in inequality before the law and legalizes a caste system against people based on their belonging or not belonging to certain groups which are thought to have or lack certain amounts of power/privilege (see the Intersectionality Wheel of Privilege and Power).

When it comes to “equality,” we have to ask a few questions to assess it correctly: What is it? Can it be achieved? Is it just? Rothbard lays out an explanation that takes the definition of “equality” seriously and its consequences,

There is one and only one way, then, in which any two people can really be “equal” in the fullest sense: they must be identical in all of their attributes. This means, of course, that equality of all men—the egalitarian ideal—can only be achieved if all men are precisely uniform, precisely identical with respect to all of their attributes. The egalitarian world would necessarily be a world of horror fiction—a world of faceless and identical creatures, devoid of all individuality, variety, or special creativity.