I began this post a while ago and, due to a bad connection, it was eaten by the data heaven of the internet. sniff*
So, I shall re-sum my opinion of Hayek's argument that liberty and equality do not coincide. As usual, Hayek is being vague while discussing this subject (He argues that this is necessary to construct an emotionally distant argument, but yet he eliminates far too many truths in the process and leaves contextual examples lacking any merit.)
Equality is a stepping stone to building a free society. In the context of democracy, building a free society from equality has only served a to be a divisive cognitive dissonance as individuals have pursued happiness coercively through corrupted institutions, such as slavery. But this is a result of a flawed framework of thought, not an effect of striving for equality. The goal is unspecified freedom, not institutionalized utopianism, otherwise we may as well stop dying for lost causes.
It is true that we must not assume that liberty means equal treatment for everyone...and that everyone should receive the same treatment overall. Different individuals face different needs. Redistribution of wealth does not accomplish the goal of a fair outcome for all. If the wealthy have wealth because they are endowed with the ability to produce something that is considered valuable to society, the less endowed who maintain a different skill set are not less equal, however, If you teach him the basic skill to produce something of value, he is better off than if you were to give him the profits of the wealthy. If you give an impoverished man an indefinite amount of food and money, he will want and indefinite amount of food and money, but his skill remains at the same level.