If infinite money exists, but right now I have $50 and you have $30, egalitarianism says you should get $20 more.
Infinite money does not exist. So if I have $50, and you have $30, I would have to give you $10. Which isn't equal for me, because you get $10, and I lose $10. I lose. Why should I have to lose?
Of course, civil rights aren't money. Which is why the idea of egalitarianism seems sound. But when the exercise of equality influences the course of zero-sum decisions (like money decisions), the idea of egalitarianism doesn't work. Whoever already has more wins.
Last time I checked, infinite money has existed ever since we stopped backing it with finite resources (gold, silver, etc.). Now we have governments printing as much as they like and banks that are "too big to fail" that are allowed to gamble with our 1's and 0's however they choose all the while knowing that there will be no repercussions for failure.