Do you support the Missouri Compromise?

The state decides that you cannot paint your house, even though other houses are already painted. This is because the state pays for the paints, and painting every house could put the state out of business. Do you think that this is fair?

The state decides you can paint your house, only if another person moves into the vacant house next to you. Luckily, you know that someone wants that house. They say they cannot afford to paint everyone's house. Do you think this is reasonable?

You are happy that the state lets you paint your house! But was begging the state to do so worth it?

The state adds a new law and says that only the west of the state can paint their houses. You do live to the west, but is it fair to the eastern people who want to paint their house?

The state adds this new law to keep everything balanced, but the east is expanding. You find a better job and move to the east, and now you cannot paint your house. What is your reaction?

Your parents have been living in the east sometime. They have a tiny bit more money going towards their schools and recreational centers because the state does not have to pay for the paint. If you were living in the east, would this be fair?

The west argues that some people want to paint their houses above the division line. The people that want to paint their homes live very close to the west. The state rejects this. Is this fair?

Years later, the line is dismantled due to protests and a couple more people can paint their houses. Was this worth the wait?