Login to vote in this poll.
It seems that this is a somewhat unpopular--or perhaps uninteresting?--question for the majority of the players here, though I can't see why. I have voted "No" because I believe that unequal wealth is a natural part of biological and social systems as a whole, but that the dynamism of natural systems will make up for periods of inequality in the long run. I will elaborate on what I mean in this statement.
Biological and social systems are unequally distributed everywhere we look. From the world's oceans to the biospheres of this Earth, we find natural systems that have components in which manifestation of energy geologically is quite different depending on where in the world the specific region is located. For example, the Earth's oceans are divided into various divisions, with each level possessing a varying amount of energy and natural resources; among these the deepest waters (the benthic zone) is cold and dark, unsupported by the light of the sun. Instead, creatures adapt to these harsher conditions by harnessing energy from alternative sources.
Similarly, global social systems show a balance of power and wealth that can shift over time. Previous research points at the idea that historically, prosperous major cities in the history of humanity have often grown in inversely with the decline of other cities. (Forgive me for not providing a link; I read some research on this several years ago.) For example, the growth of certain dominant city-states in ancient Mesopotamia was dependent on numerous factors, stretching from domestic to international, meaning that not only was there complex trade going on, but domestic unrest and societal structuring also played a role. Change in the system of governmental systems is the result of a complex multivariable equation that is not solved so easily by redistributing wealth.
Furthermore, history has shown that the rise and decline of Empires is fickle. China has risen up through the ages repeatedly as a military and regional power, while the current domination of European-influenced societies can be seen as a second era of prosperity in succession to the once great Roman Empire. I assume that time parameters in this game have not been described completely, but I think that there is strong reason to add no reason to cap the time scale in the near future. We can imagine that countries in different areas, motivated perhaps to see their own local areas prosperous, rise up and change their current domestic situation, which is one of destitution relative to that of the current developed countries.
I would like to add that I qualify my statement: Assistance should be provided to those areas where domestic stability is so precarious that the most basic of food needs cannot allow population growth. Insofar as we should help communities who are suffering from population loss and destruction, there should be a minimum of distribution of wealth from wealthier citizens to less wealthier ones. However, I do not think an unequal distribution is unnatural nor immoral, and hence one rule of the game should not be to actively seek ways to redistribute wealth.
The 'yes' vote is only if there is not already a global network of resource exchange set up. If every country is required to donate resources to a central world bank of sorts and then distributed equally to each country based on the population size it supports, then points for unequal distribution of natural resources among countries would not be necessary. If such a system did not exist, then it seems favorable to give more points to those countries with less resources.
It seems as though a country's lack of resources would lead to less purchasing power in a world market. Therefore, distributing extra points to those without resources would equalize the playing field for these countries. Equalizing the playing field in this way would allow the measurement of efficiency for government policies and economic strategies to occur most easily. Without distributing points and allowing countries with more natural resources to have the unquestioned privilege means that resource-rich countries would not need to invest as much into securing the most efficient policies on how to use said resources or how to ensure sustainability.