Using very broad strokes, there are 2 kinds of horse races:

1. handicap

2. stakes

In handicap, the horses all carry different weights. Why? Because some horses are faster than others. And the goal of the handicapper is to get them to all cross the finish line at the same time. The handicapper has to give them different weights in order to get them to finish close to each other.

In stakes racing, all the horses carry exactly the same weight. Fastest horse wins.

So, you have either

1. equal rules, or
2. equal outcomes

Can't have both.

Stakes racing encourages you to do your best because it is straightforward and honest. Fastest horse to the finish line wins. No monkeying around.

Handicap racing introduces all sorts of perverse incentives, because now you have eliminated the referee and instead the referee has joined the game and is trying to produce a specific outcome. So the game now becomes who can manipulate the rules the best. Who can make it look like they are running flat out but really aren't so that they can carry less weight next time, because in handicap racing, success is simply met by more and more difficult loads. The incentives in handicap racing are perverse and reversed.

So the question becomes -- are you more focused on the individual regardless of what that does to the game? In which case you will choose handicap. Or, are you more concerned with keeping the game clean and honest regardless of whether all individuals have an equal chance of winning? In which case you will go with the stakes design.

But, once you realize how this works, you realize that, in general, political parties are actually focused on the OPPOSITE of what they tend to talk about the most.

Those who advocate for manipulating the rules in order to produce equal outcomes are not focused on the stability of the system, are not focused on keeping the game clean and honest, are not actually focused on society at all. Society is just a means to benefit the individual, just a piggy bank to make withdrawals from to get us all to the finish line closer together. Which is the opposite of the focus on village that this group usually talks about.

And conversely, those who advocate equal rules no matter the outcome, despite their perseveration on individual freedom and their willingness to pay the price of individual responsibility in order to buy it, actually settle on this design because it keeps society clean and honest. Which means that they are more worried about a stable society, a stable competition, than they are worried about the individuals they are always talking about. They are willing to pay the price of some individuals having less chance to win than others in order to protect the integrity of society.

Funny how reality is usually the opposite of what we think it is....