The critique of Pareto Optimality is the example of futility. If a person that has a million dollars is taxed at a higher rate than a person with a dollar to gain the utility of an equivalent burden, according to Pareto the value is suboptimal because there is a winner and a loser. Modifying the perfect (pure) model of mathematical equivalence with a more practical model (to adjust for the externalities) is inherently ambivalent because the ambiguity associated with the utility is a relative value. The result of the practical measure is arguably ambivalent and likely to cause more problems than it solves, thus making the ambiguity even more available. Pursuing the utility of the argument without mathematical equivalence is an exercise in futility.
Using Pareto’s Elite-School argument, as conservatives are apt to do, the absolute value of the mathematical equivalence is the greatest utility. It naturally disambiguates the argument with a logical-positive measure we can all agree on.
The logic of mathematical equivalence has natural symmetry–it is the same thing everywhere, in every dimension, all at the same time. Understanding it to be the truth is spontaneous and simultaneous (universal), verifying to confirm the attributes of a natural law that orders things in an understandable, measurable, and thus predictable way (resisting absolutely nothing on demand).
Yes, like Thomas Aquinas said, reason shines on all of us equally.
Existing measure and resisting nothing (naturally aggressing a passive resistance on demand), reason has spontaneous and simultaneous symmetry. It naturally possesses the imperative value of equivalence, logically existing in priority, having the power to optimize utility, adding identity (resisting nothing) to infinity (and beyond good and evil) in the positive pursuit of happiness.