Human beings are not all equal, nor should they be. Were the egalitarians and Marxists to have their way, no-one would gain anything, but most people would lose something.
The best analogy for equality I’ve seen is from the computer card game Hearthstone. The game is by the company Blizzard, which is most famous for the Warcraft and Starcraft series. In the game there is a card called Equality, which changes the health of all minions to 1.
In Hearthstone the minions (creatures and monsters the players control to fight with the other) have the stats for attack (bottom left) and health (bottom right). You kill the opponent’s minions or the opponent in the game by reducing their health to 0. It’s quite simple.
When you use the card Equality in Hearthstone, it basically reduces the health of all minions to the lowest common denominator. Health 1 is the lowest amount a minion can have, were it to have a health lower than that, it would be dead. Therefore no minion in the game can ever benefit from Equality. Minions only can lose health from it, or stay the same. However, Equality is a fairly good card in the game. The aim is not to use it buff your own minions but to weaken strong and healthy minions of your opponent.
When applied to real life, it can be said that those who promote equality do not do so because of compassion for the weak, but to make the strong lose something. Of course I’m not saying all egalitarians are deliberately conspiring to weaken you. There are plenty of well-meaning useful idiots in the crowd.
Not all people possess equal physical strength, reasoning ability, sense of morality, courage or the same amount of material wealth. Nor should they. We should celebrate excellence, not condemn people for it. That’s not to say that people do not sometimes abuse their qualities (certainly in the case of material wealth), but if we were to force everybody to be the same, it would mean those who are strong would lose the strength to fight those who abuse their power.
I support justice and fairness. Equality is not that. Some people live in huge mansions, while most do not. Is this fair? No. However it is impossible to build a mansion for each individual or family. So would it be fair to say that no-one is allowed to live in a mansion? No. It’s even less fair than a small minority living in mansions. Since humanity has learned the ability to build fancy mansions, it’s nice some people are able to enjoy them, even if not everybody is able to do so.
However, if somebody is able to live in a fancy mansion at the expense and squalor of the others, then I’m all for the peasants rising up to take what they need, by force, if necessary. But somebody having a mansion to live in is not inherently exploitative. There’s a distinction between being successful (or just lucky having inherited wealth), and being successful by exploitation and injustice. This is a distinction Marxists seem unable to make. They, along with other egalitarians, seem to believe in “Neighbor’s goat, too, must die” -philosophy, from Communist Hungary. It means if I don’t have a goat, for equality your goat has to die too.
Equality is in practice a sick form of envy.
Neighbor’s goat, too, must die: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_-36e9Z82c