On the one hand there are (1) reasons why a particular individual wishes that he did not have less income/assets/wealth than certain other individuals he knows. These may include envying their consumption patters, envying the security with which they can provide for themselves and their children, being jealous of his or her own current status and thinking it threatened by his or her lower position.

On the other hand there are (2) reasons why a person wishes that income/assets/wealth were distributed more equally in their society as a whole. These reasons depend on the theories that this individual has about what various aspects of that society/culture have to do with the inequality. The theories make reference to that particular society as it has actually developed. These are complex developments that, as Hayek would emphasize, could never have been predicted.

Contractarianism can deal much better with (1) than with (2). We can speculate in various ways about what positions individuals would be willing to accept in society. But since, by Hayekian hypothesis, we cannot predict what our society will look like as a result as our agreements contracting about what developments we would be willing to accept becomes impossible.

But (2) may be more important than (1). It could be that more people care more about it than (1). Or, it could even be that, as a matter of moral fact, (2) considerations are what matters. If this were to be the case, contractarianism (and liberalism except possibly as a means to an end) would be unsatisfying.

These are experimental thoughts only.