Peter G. Stillman said:  
But it is also important to see that the imposing of equality on   
unequals has its own dangers.  To me, this is most apparent in the   
US's valuable but limited 'equality before the law' -- valuable,   
because we are in important ways equal (so that, eg, a woman's   
testimony is equal to a man's); but also very limited, because   
dollars buy good representation.  And, it seems to me, contemporary   
economics, like Becker's, is vulnerable to the same sort of criticism.  
  
  
  
I accept Peter Stillman's implicit criticism of the ideal of the "rule of   
law" and equality before the law.  This equality  before the law is not yet ripe   
for all men and woman and economic means can give anyone and edge in   
litigation. Indeed, we Western Civilization supporters have still a long way to go.    
  
But. . . . .  
  
A good judge can all offset the imbalance and most judges in Massachusetts   
that I have dealth with do just that.  The "rule of law" does not make judges   
into automatons incapable of witnessing what is taking place before them and   
intentionally intervening to avoid terribly unjust results.  (For example, an   
indigent tenant without adequate legal representation facing a well-healed   
management association attorney trying to evict the tenant who cannot find her   
alimony check needed for the unpaid rent, will have that trial remanded, delayed, etc.,
until a judge is satisfied that some balancing of equities is facing him or her. It is not
always about money.As most Massachusetts attorneys know too well, the rich clients do not
always win.)
  
To have a concept of "equality before the law" as aspirational is important   
and what distinguishes Western civilization from many other cultures is this   
commitment to individual equality before the law.  The idea of human rights is   
all about protecting individuals (often young women) from the stoning of their   
brothers and family members. Human rights ideas include the right of an   
individual to leave his or her family and territory.  All cultural values are not equal.
Some are awful.  Footbinding is awful.  Stoning and mutiliation of
children is awful.  I have a longer list but enough.  
  
As Hayek wisely reminded us about existing differences among peoples, to   
produce some ideals of equality necessarily means treating individuals differently before
the law.  When the law had one law for one group and a different set of laws for another
group, something important about fairness might be lost.   The U.S. Supreme Court debate
over the last several decades dramatizes the wisdon of Hayek's insights. The Court does
see the value in equal treatment before the law and accepts the opposite idea of treating
individual preferentially only in specific and limited circumstances.
  
Individualism is a great deal more than just this legal rights talk, etc.  It   
holds that individual should and are autonomous moral agents capable of deep   
reflection and moral responsibility.  It does not say anything about "race" or   
gender and in the 19th century some economics (neo-liberal economists!) held   
to that view risking life and limb.  It has its roots in Stoic thought and   
continues in the cosmopolitan traditions that in some ways were kept alive in the more
erudite Christian sources.
  
Again, the ideal suggested by the ideal equality before the law is Western   
and aspirational.  While it is not inappropriate to point out the hypocrisy and   
the contradications in their application to different circumstances, this is   
not enough to discredit the idea. When we find such imperfections we should not   
"throw the baby out with the bath water" but seek ways to better achieve the   
ideal.  Classical liberalism has nothing to be ashamed of as Sandy and David   
have laboriously pointed out.  The tradition was most faithfully carried into   
the 20th century by members of the Austrian school and especially the work of   
Ludwig von Mises who most fortunately left Vienna well in advance of the Nazis   
whose ideas about equality were quite different from most of us on this list.  
  
I look forward to any criticisms at all that have something to do with these   
ideas.  I apologize if I have expressed them incorrectly or in a way the   
offends anyone on this list.  It seems that only a minority of historians of   
economic ideas are around to defend them.  
  
Laurence Moss