Equality is a pipe dream.

How do we define equality? Webster describes it as something having the same size, quantity, value, rights or rank. If absolute equality existed, then each of us would have equal talents, skills, motivation, upbringing, tastes and outcomes. We would be indistinguishable from one another... a globe populated by identical borgs. Because of our uniform sameness, choices would be impossible. Whom should I love or marry? Who becomes my best friend (bff if you're under 30)? Where shall we live, and where to work? It's all the same. Doesn't matter. Nothing matters. No worries, no cares, no joy, no dreams, no nuance.

Taken to the extreme, absolute equality is abhorrent. What if we all are self-loathers, and everyone else is exactly like us. Homicide and suicide rates would be astronomical. What if we were all penniless? Our actions and behavior would make "Lord of the Flies" or "Lost" look like a day in the park. What if we were all stupid? After several generations (if Darwin is correct) we would lose to amoeba while playing "Jeopardy." So, if you catch my drift, true or pure equality is not necessarily a good thing.

We can all agree, however, that some elements of equality are desirable. Equal opportunity to maximize our talents should be a given. Chances for developing our skills should be universally available. Freedom to make life choices, for good or for ill, should be available to all. There may be many more "equalities" that one might name, but they probably would tend to yield equality of outcomes. It's difficult, in my opinion, to exercise the first three elements of equality in this paragraph and support any type of outcome-based measurement of equality. It seems that any desire to equalize outcomes ultimately results in an errosion of freedom. As dear old Granny used to say, "Be careful what you wish for."

I would add, "Put that in your pipe (dream) and smoke it."