Equality is not a recipe for fairness. Inequality is.
Why should there be? We are all different, and the value of our crucial differences is more important than the value of our stifling conformity. So why would we design our systems to yield equality?
The real question is why our current inequality creates a narrow and steep bell-curve of merit and wealth, poignantly looking much like an erect middle finger on an otherwise closed fist. Reminds you of anything?
The reason for that is we deploy an oligarchic definition – a monism – of freedom, that prevents the proliferation of a dynamic and renewable meritocracy based on the value of our innate differences, with poor or nonexistent remuneration outside the staunchly protected oligarchy.
My point is, equality is a worthless and unattainable goal. Instead, what we can achieve is a more fair distribution of money to evolutionary merit.
We must not pursue equality as a cheap and populous consequential rebel without a cause, but seek and remunerate a broader scope of value derived from our innate inequality to yield a strengthening of human evolution, in an ever-evolving equilibrium with nature.
We must reinvent the operating-systems for humanity to attach the intrinsic merit of all of us to a higher normalization of our evolutionary goals and compass, with a relativity theory of freedom to spawn much needed dynamic meritocracies to encircle the (relativity of the) world.
Equality is indeed an oxymoron in an evolutionary context, and merely incompatible with the rules of evolution bestowed upon us. But we can build much smarter systems that change our mindless rat-race for wealth into systems directly linking our contributions to our collective evolutionary prowess and integrity.
The result will be a more fair distribution of wealth-to-value, and a better, broader, and dynamic bell-curve of merit as evidence of our collective values. But not necessarily the eradication of inequality, ever.