Please note... post full of sarcasm... just a little fun.
I did not roll the highest number and was forced to go last out of the starting gate. I rolled a 5 and Arc rolled a 6... but he was sitting to my left and even though I had the 2nd highest roll, I had to go last. This is the first "unfair" part of the game.
Due to the fact Arc rolled the highest number, he was able to accumulate properties right off the bat and was getting the upper hand. I was "unlucky" in my rolls as I did not land on any properties to purchase until my second time around the board... this also was "unfair".
Our son J began making some shady deals with Arc, thus giving him an early Monopoly with the two properties with the highest rent... again... unfair. I finally got a Monopoly after a little wheeling and dealing with J but ended up with the LOWEST rented properties on the board... again... unfair. What was even more unfair was that only twice did anyone land on those squares and at one point, I was in jail so could not collect. Sigh...
Eventually, our son T lost almost all of his money and was homeless with several mortgaged properties. At one point he started making a come-back and even unmortgaged his properties. This did not last long as Arc had accumulated enough money to put cities on his properties. Unfortunately, T landed on one of those and went completely bankrupt, forcing him out of the game. I too had cities on my properties, but since no one was landing there, it really didn't matter... plus, my poor business practices of accumulating these stupid properties really wasn't a consideration... right?
No amount of convincing would get Arc to trade with me so that I could obtain another Monopoly even though he clearly had the best on the board and could afford to give up just "one" card. This was highly unfair... how on earth was I to be able to compete if all options were blocked?
Eventually, J landed on Arc's properties (about 3 times) and ended up going bankrupt. He did come back from the brink a couple of times and even got his properties back... but alas "the man" stuck it to him and he had to leave the game.
I landed on his properties a couple of times myself but had accumulated quite a bit of money even though the game was so clearly unfair and stacked against me. All during the game we were hoping he would go to jail or have to pay higher taxes or have some other catastrophe happen... but alas his luck did not run out.
Mine, on the other hand, did... although I had accumulated quite a bit by then, I knew that landing on one of his several properties would do me in. Still, he would not trade with me or make any kind of deal... he merely waited for me to fail and hope he could benefit from my crisis. Alas, I landed and went into a great tailspin to my end.
The moral... never play against greedy players.
All kidding aside... we had a great deal of fun playing. This was a lesson in economics and personal beliefs for me. Truly, those of us not doing so well felt that the rich player "had it coming to him" when something bad happened, while those not so rich were ignored and it was okay when they succeeded... but just a little bit. If they began to gain too much, suddenly they were a threat.
Both Arc and J had an interest in gaining great wealth and destroying their opponents. Because of this, it seemed only fair when bad things happened to them. In reality, they were the better negotiators and did a better job of utilizing their wealth to create more wealth. They landed on the same tax squares and pulled the same cards that caused them to put more money into the kitty. But when you're a player who is drowning, you want all the bad stuff to happen to the player who is not.
So... is this what liberals feel? Do they feel that since a person is wealthy and accumulating money that they must have bad things happen to them in order to make it fair for those who are not doing so well? I've read things and heard things and have seen how they delight in the failure of anyone who is just "too wealthy" and "too successful" compared to the guy sitting on his couch watching Jay Leno and reruns of the Flintstones. Clearly sitting on your butt qualifies as trying your best... right?
What rich liberals want is for "other" rich people to give a majority of their fortune to those who are not rich... but specifically anyone who is poor and agrees with liberals. No... I really DO mean that. It doesn't benefit liberals to give handouts to those who don't agree with them. You can almost visualize them trying to convince these desperate individuals with a little cash, a wink and a nod.
Another question... how many very rich liberals give significant amounts of money to charities? I'm sure there are some... just as there are rich conservatives who give. But I can tell you one liberal who does not... our new vice president.