I like to use a similar scenario to try to convince people that there absolutely need to be reparations:
Everyone plays through one game where only one person can acquire property and everyone else’s GO money also goes to that person. Then, without resetting the money or property, the game is played a second time where the rules are the same for everyone (lol, wouldn’t that be nice, but it makes the argument better). Then challenge the person to say that the game is fair because everyone has the same opportunity and rules.
It works good for estate “death” tax arguments too.
Obviously, there are other arguments that should be more convincing, but y’know, 'Murica
I like to use a similar scenario to try to convince people that there absolutely need to be reparations:
Everyone plays through one game where only one person can acquire property and everyone else’s GO money also goes to that person. Then, without resetting the money or property, the game is played a second time where the rules are the same for everyone (lol, wouldn’t that be nice, but it makes the argument better). Then challenge the person to say that the game is fair because everyone has the same opportunity and rules.
It works good for estate “death” tax arguments too.
Obviously, there are other arguments that should be more convincing, but y’know, 'Murica