I think you're basically describing egalitarianism, correct me if I'm wrong. I'd recommend Rawls as good philosophical material on the subject. Always been how

I think you're basically describing egalitarianism, correct me if I'm wrong. I'd recommend Rawls as good philosophical material on the subject. Always been how I view the world personally and I think people underestimate how much of it could be compatible with free markets and a good deal of general and important freedoms. Of course that's a much longer debate. To get back to the point, what the author describing is also egalitarian. I think people are generally more interested in it with a game because of the finite setting. Golf handicaps are a perfect example that would have fit well into the article. People get more wary as the scope expands.