Pretend that each and every person is ideally 'equal' beings in some genetic way such that the particular bodies we live in are like mere 'skins' that are environmental avatars we are arbitrarily placed into. Then everything else other than this 'equal' meaning is 'environmental'.
Given the environments differ, we are not 'equal' with respect to a particular life experiences. But my question here is whether there is any universal validity to 'equality' of life from this imaginary scenario such that we can find a 'fair' agreement of conduct in life to assure that each and every one of us has independently EQUAL opportunities to succeed?
This is a question that relates to almost every political ideology. For some, they think that the mere 'conception' of being alive should be sufficiently 'fair'. This makes those arguing for 'pro-life' treat equality as merely BEING defined as alive at some root origin. Yet, if we are arbitrarily placed into any and all possible environmental situations applicable to becoming initially alive, how is it possible to assure that everyone can have an EQUAL POWER to succeed?
I think that since there at least is SOME environment that assures one particular 'skin' we could be implanted into exists that assures failure regardless of what we could do ourselves or by others help, no ideal environmental factors, such as laws we could devise and assure for us all, could be realistic. For instance, let one example arbitrary factor be one life born unto a person where some natural disaster (environmental possibility) kills you. This 'bad luck' is an environmental proof that you cannot assure each person succeeds in any environment.
In fact, we might also recognize, using the simple controversy regarding abortion, as is being discussed in other threads here, that a law that might assure that one who is granted an arbitrary skin (a life) is being unfair if they also have the power to independently decide to have children without the consent of the whole population. That is, why should it be 'fair' to permit any individual an absence of political laws regarding the choice to bring another child into the world when this act forcefully imposes a kind of 'theft' upon other's right to an equal share of potential power? If we have given fixed quantity of resources, then any additional person SPLITS the share of a 'fair' distribution of ownership of the world.
To me, this demonstrates that no political ideological system can merely treat our existence as 'fair'. But if further we then recognize that the environment itself is just 'unfair' and should be accepted, then does it matter whether we have any laws formed that permit any unbalanced fairness? In other words, if there is no 'fair' environment that suffices to permit each person an 'equal' right regardless, then does it matter WHICH system of government we allow?
I don't see any resolution of political contradictions that are satisfactory except by the perspective of the individual to compete to exist independently of any ideal. That we cannot all be nor achieve natural fairness, then the default power towards any government system is towards favoring those ideas that FAVOR your own existence/persistence. That is, it seems our real political differences are only related to how we inherit our initial positions with respect to the powers that FIT to our favor. The majority would then favor the 'democratic' types of governments over the 'republican' forms. It doesn't mean that the 'democratic' majority MEANS it is more nor less correct, but that it favors MORE people. If you happen to be of a minority subset that loses should the majority rule, then while you might then favor a more limited form of government that favors you, it is also neither less nor more 'correct' to favor.
For these reasons, I find politics unable to be resolved.
Do others have other thought experiments to show this or attempt to overrule this conclusion?