What's more important, liberty or equality?

Liberty up to a point. There needs to be some level of equality of outcome, even if it is enforced via force, in order for liberty to be meaningful.

Liberty, I've read far too much dystopian fiction to ever side with equality.

Of course. And there has to be some level of liberty in-order for equality to have benefits, or you just get North Korea.

Obviously not enough. Most modern dystonia fiction is set in some kind of futurist capitalist and corporatism society. The modern world is tending towards Brave New World (especially in the west) rather than 1984.

So fanatics at both ends are dangerous. I a think a more useful question is how should power be distributed.

That isn't the point though. As I stated in the OP, most of us lie somewhere in-between, but I think when push comes to shove, when we get down to the nitty-gritty, we'd all favour one over the other. Orwell said that the 'The real division is not between conservatives and revolutionaries but between authoritarians and libertarians', and I think there's a lot of truth in that. I'm sure, considering he was a socialist, he doesn't really mean libertarians in the sense of free-market fundamentalists, but more just those who value liberty above all. However, I think a more evident divide is that between individualists and collectivists. Most people who value equality above liberty are collectivists, and think in a collectivist way. For example, people who complain about cultural appropriation are often taking a collectivist stance. If a white man gets dreadlocks, they are bothered because of how it effects the main collective who values that hairstyle beyond it merely being a fashion statement. However, the individualists stand by the individual's freedom to wear whatever he pleases, and feel that to confine such freedom in the name of the collective is a kind of tyranny of the majority.

That isn't the point though. As I stated in the OP, most of us lie somewhere in-between, but I think when push comes to shove, when we get down to the nitty-gritty, we'd all favour one over the other. Orwell said that the 'The real division is not between conservatives and revolutionaries but between authoritarians and libertarians', and I think there's a lot of truth in that. I'm sure, considering he was a socialist, he doesn't really mean libertarians in the sense of free-market fundamentalists, but more just those who value liberty above all. However, I think a more evident divide is that between individualists and collectivists. Most people who value equality above liberty are collectivists, and think in a collectivist way. For example, people who complain about cultural appropriation are often taking a collectivist stance. If a white man gets dreadlocks, they are bothered because of how it effects the main collective who values that hairstyle beyond it merely being a fashion statement. However, the individualists stand by the individual's freedom to wear whatever he pleases, and feel that to confine such freedom in the name of the collective is a kind of tyranny of the majority.

All very good but if given the choice I would rather be a fed soviet citizen than a starving "free" homeless person in a "libertarian society".

I'd rather be homeless person with the opportunity to get a job or potentially start a career in whatever I please and make a life for myself, and be able to say and create whatever I like, than be a fed, but poorly fed, soviet citizen who can never expect or work towards a better life, and have very limited freedoms, and live in a world where creativity is stifled to the point that the world around me is dull and monotonous.

ok

Just saying

I'm skepticle of the "opportunity" in such a situation. Liberty can only work if there is at least base level of equality of outcome.

"oppunitnity" as a response is like saying the lottery is a solution to poverty.