News and Politics Forum

maxor wrote:

I was asking a friend which statement he identified with the most:

A) I am willing to sacrifice freedom for fairness.
B) I am willing to sacrifice fairness for freedom

He said A. His main argument was that everything isn't fair, and until everyone starts from the same place, we have to focus on making things fair before giving people personal freedoms.

He brought up the fact that we both come from more privileged backgrounds compared to say people in the inner city. I think he was suggesting that it's easy for me to say that freedom is more important than fairness because I'm on the good side of the fairness issue and come from a good upbringing.

So how do I come to terms with the fact that I come from a good background and lived a fairly privileged background but still think that freedom is more important than fairness?

Shouldn't I need to be a rags-to-riches story before I can tout the benefits of freedom over fairness?

I don't believe the two to be mutually exclusive.  I don't understand how there can be freedom without fairness.

Perhaps we need to define "fairness" here.

Last edited by Charles Taylor (07-14-2008 07:47 PM)

I want to kill all of you.

It's pretty cut and dried. Freedom begets fairness. Case closed. That definition of unfairness usually results from oppression of some sort.

Is this supposed to be hard to figure out?

maxor wrote:

By fairness I mean "people should have the same things that other people have".

Oh, Hell no.

People should have what they have earned.

maxor wrote:

By fairness I mean "people should have the same things that other people have".

"Should"?

Why should some be fat, and others thin, some short, others tall, some smart, others not, some industrious and others lazy?

Social inequality stems from personal inequality.  Fighting it fights our nature.

AC wrote:

zukiphile wrote:

the imprimatur of the former proletariat.

lolwut?

O know u di'int!

My level of intellect is unable to process much of what Zuk types. I find that very unfair.

But seriously, in regards to the topic at hand, fairness only exists in a vacuum, so who the hell cares? If you're measuring fairness by what you have, I guess it only matters if you subtract that by what you started with.

Charles Taylor wrote:

maxor wrote:

By fairness I mean "people should have the same things that other people have".

I think this part might be the where I'm having trouble.  What is the difference between "things" and rights? Or are they one in the same?

Is food a right?
Is shelter a right?
Is health care a right?

If some people have food and others don't, is that unfair? What about shelter, health care or education?

Matt has already pointed out a central tenet of my usual rant when somebody goes on about how things need to be more "fair". 

Often foolish people with reality detachment syndrome blather about fairness when they really mean sameness.  They do this while ignoring that outcome is typically indicative of input. 

Imposing sameness will be inherently far more unfair than allowing some to achieve more due to their personal abilities. 

Usually this definition of fairness comes from such people in discussions of economic matters.  They feel that there needs to be a more fair distribution of economic well being - of course never at their expense.  But "somebody" ought to do something.  This rarely involves them of course - much like most "tax the rich" types I know are hard pressed to identify what constitutes "rich" save for an income mark marginally above their own. 



I'm reminded of an old joke:

A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat, and was very much in favor of the redistribution of wealth.
She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.
One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the addition of more government welfare programs. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how she was doing in school.
Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many college friends because she spent all her time studying.
Her father listened and then asked, "How is your friend Audrey doing ?" She replied, "Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She's always invited to all the parties, and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes because she's too hung over."
The father then asked asked his daughter, "Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct a 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA."
The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, "That wouldn't be fair! I have worked really hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!"

The father smiled and said "Welcome to the Republican party."

Enforcing an artificial equality of outcome regardless of input is inherently unfair.  At least to those who value effort, ability and achievement over equality. 

If you value those things then much of the disparity is indicative that the system rewards most people accordingly and is therefore already fair. 

(yes, I realize Paris Hilton has been rewarded far more than she has achieved, but I think it's best for now to keep the discussion off those whose major achievement involves which vagina they came out of, or what they do with their own now)

I was about to type exactly what Qwinn wrote (maybe for the first time in history).  Equality of outcome is welfare, and welfare is almost always unfair.

maxor wrote:

Charles Taylor wrote:

maxor wrote:

By fairness I mean "people should have the same things that other people have".

I think this part might be the where I'm having trouble.  What is the difference between "things" and rights? Or are they one in the same?

Is food a right?
Is shelter a right?
Is health care a right?

If some people have food and others don't, is that unfair? What about shelter, health care or education?

Well, you still have quantity and quality of resources to contend with.  If those things are a right, and all people should have those "same" things, how do you make the distribution of those "same" things fair given their limited nature?  Freedom is the equal right to competion for limited resources in a 'free market'.

It would be unfair, if those without food or shelter did not have an equal right to compete for those things.  One could also add, that without that "fairness" of right to competition, that they in turn do not have the same "freedom" as their peers.

Last edited by Charles Taylor (07-14-2008 10:07 PM)

maxor wrote:

I think it comes down to guilt and sorrow. To have the world view that there is a fairness problem means that I have to feel guilty that my dad worked hard to provide for me and that I need to feel sorry for people who were not so fortunate.  Obviously I do not feel this way.

I don't feel sorrow for their poverty, because I didn't cause it.  However I do regret that some do not live as they would prefer whether it is from lack of wealth, health, beauty, industry or freedom.  That doesn't mean that making others less wealthy, healthy, beautiful, industrious or free helps anyone even though this seems to be the fallback method for imposed "fairness".