Egalitarianism vs. Inegalitarianism

As has been previously discussed, the fundamental principle of Political Philosophy must be that a collective is better organized than not, i. e. because otherwise there is no reason for such a project.  Now, that principle can be more precisely expressed as : A collective is stronger organized than not.  Accordingly, a standard debate in Political Philosophy--Egalitarianism vs. Inegalitarianism--remains undecided, and is, perhaps, irresolvable. For, it follows from the principle that the best system is one in which the strength of each member is maximized.  So, the further derivation of either Egalitarianism or Inegalitarianism requires a necessary formulation of the relation of the maximum strengths of each member, a formulation for which some contingent thesis is inadequate.  But, hitherto, the prominent propositions on the topic that have been presented by both sides, e. g. Spinoza's and Rousseau's vs. Plato's and Nietzsche's, have all been contingent, whether statements of actuality, or of potentiality.  As a result, in an understandable eagerness to resolve the debate, each side has tended to settle for oversimplification that loses sight of the preliminary problem, which is the maximization of the strength of each member of a collective.