3 sorts of "equality"

I told a certain Misesian tonight that I had a proposed revision to the left/right and up/down axes described in the Nolan Chart, and I gave him my thumbnail sketch of the revision.

He pointed me to Roderick T. Long's "Equality: The Unknown Ideal", which I'll comment on later, when I try to present my revision to Nolan.

Meanwhile, I'd like to quote Wendy McElroy, as Long himself quotes her in his lecture:

[T]he meaning of equality differs within the feminist movement. Throughout most of its history, American mainstream feminism considered equality to mean equal treatment under existing laws and equal representation within existing institutions. The focus was not to change the status quo in a basic sense, but rather to be included within it. The more radical feminists protested that existing laws and institutions were the source of injustice and, thus, could not be reformed. . . . [T]heir concepts of equality reflected this. To the individualist, equality was a political term referring to the protection of individual rights; that is, protection of the moral jurisdiction every human being has over his or her own body. To socialist-feminists, it was a socio-economic term. . . . While Marxist class analysis uses the relationship to the mode of production as its point of reference, libertarian class analysis uses the relationship to the political means as its standard. Society is divided into two classes: those who use the political means, which is force, to acquire wealth or power and those who use the economic means, which requires voluntary interaction. The former is the ruling class which lives off the labor and wealth of the latter.

From: "Introduction: The Roots of Individualist Feminism in 19th-Century America," pp. 3, 23, in Wendy McElroy, ed., Freedom, Feminism, and the State, 2^nd ed. (New York: Holmes & Meier, 1991), pp. 3-26.