“From the fact that people are very different it follows that, if we treat them equally, the result must be inequality in their actual position, and that the only way to place them in an equal position would be to treat them differently.  Equality before the law and material equality are therefore not only different but are in conflict with each other; and we can achieve either one or the other, but not both at the same time.”

An almost accurate observation. The de jure States united was to be an equality before the law. Material equality is fiscally / physically impossible and at best, an oxymoron that is unjust and immoral from inception through fruition. The occupying statist theocracy now infesting this once hoped for land of liberty detests law in its pursuit of material equality (in reality, it is not a material equality system but rather an elitist caste system).

@Mike, Unless the statists engage in legalized plunder i.e. (THE LAW) then they like it just fine.

Everyone is equal but some are more equal than others.

Very well said, Mike. "An almost accurate observation". the more accurate statement " An elitist caste system".
Hayek sounds more and more, just an economist going along for the ride. neutral.

The shorter the description of the ideal (i.e. 'equality'), the easier to divert the intent. 'Equality,' 'Justice,' 'Fair,' 'Change,' 'Security,' and even 'Freedom' itself all can be twisted to mean their opposites and justify oppression in the name of the 'Public Good.' What seems to be ignored with all 'good' social work projects is WHO is to be the final authority on deciding how to divvy up the spoils? Who decides what is 'fair' and what the 'change' will be?