Here is a model that I have looked elsewhere. How about we imagine you are in a study room overcrowded with second degree studies? The instructor comes in and says, "We're not going to do any tests in this class." Tomorrow I'll put the wastebasket in front of the class, and each one of you will fold up a piece of paper and try to get out of the seat you're on today If you make it, drive past it, if you can not make it, you'll miss it. "
Each individual has some capacity to make the box, but there can be little uncertainty that it will be much more difficult for people in the back of the room to make containers, regardless of whether they are generally better off the crate By chance, they were on a similar balance.
These children return home and explain their plans to the people.
The next day a bunch of disturbed guards appear. The children's guardians in the background say that the test is inappropriate and that everyone should take the shot from the back (or front) of the class so that their score is a fair representation of their abilities. However, the children's guards at the front do not see a favorable position to do this. What if we imagine that this test will give them access to better schools or better employment? Evening the odds implies that for the kids in the front, they have a lesser opportunity to receive their reward, either by broadening the opportunity they come, or broadening the rivalry for the treat, when more people are over. Accordingly, the guardians of the children at the front can reject the changes. You may say, "Well, it was just the result of chance that your children could have been at the front, why would MY child be turned away for that?"
The democratic perfection is that the individual should make a decision on legitimacy and not a standpoint that changes by relying on components that are self-confident and unable to control them. Disputes, regardless of what is to be expected, are actually only disputes designed to protect the odd advantage from legitimacy.