The Government’s Definition of “Fair”…

What is fair? Is life meant to be fair? Is it fair that you have to be 6’8” to play in the NBA? Is it fair that you have to run fast to be a marathon runner? Is it fair that you have to be smart to get into Harvard? In order to make many things that we value fair, we have to change the rules and then accept the outcomes of those changes.

In order to make access to becoming an NBA player fair we would have to put in place rules like: there needs to be the same amount of woman, Asians, Whites, Hispanics, and Black players on every team. These players would need to be divided into players that are no taller than 5’1”, 5’8” and 7’0”. This would eliminate the dominance of tall players. We would also have to include a number of slots for people that are disabled. The list of rules to make the game fair could go on for pages.

We could take every institution, profession, and employment opportunity there is and make rules to make the possibility of entry to them fair but the results would all be the same; fair = distributed misery. There is no such thing as ensuring fair outcomes without manipulating the inputs. If you manipulate the inputs it is guaranteed to impact the outcomes in a negative way.

The rules of the game must be fair. The US Constitution is the rule of the game for this country. The Constitution offers a guideline for a limited intrusion into the freedom of the individual. These rules encourage people with exceptional skills, intellect, and drive to become successful without the intrusion of government bureaucrats forcing fairness on their outcomes.

Smart people will always be more successful than not so smart people. Big strong tall people will always have a better opportunity to be a professional sports player. People with a propensity to take risks will always be more likely to be successful entrepreneurs. The federal government can try to dictate that not so smart people should be smart but unless those people apply themselves the result will diminish the institutions they are enrolled in. The federal government can dictate that the NBA hires small uncoordinated people but the result is the NBA will lose its fans. The federal government can give money to people to start businesses based on something other than skill but the result will be less business at a high cost.

You can make the access to opportunity fair by making the rules of entry the same for everyone. You can try to make the outcome of results fair but that is a fool’s errand. We are not equal when it comes to skills, knowledge, God given genes, and drive, so how do you dictate success? The only way to make outcomes fair is to distribute misery.  And that is something the federal government and all government bureaucracies are really good at… Spreading misery…

Definitions that Deceive…

The fight for a free and prosperous nation means understanding the words and meanings used to secure your vote. It is also important to look at the results and consequences of implementing policies that are often sold using deceptive labels.

“Community” is the term often used by the left as a tool to support big government. “We are stronger together than we are separate” is one of the many variations of the mantra they use to equate a good quality with a big government fix. Communities can be a source of good but only in the sense that the community is organically created and not contrived. For example, a church community is a community made up of people voluntarily coming together to worship and support people of need through the programs they create- like donating time, food, and shelter in a crisis.

The “global community” on the other hand is a very dangerous community to accept or become a part of. This fictitious community is used to garner good feeling about friendliness and holding hands and common causes we share. The most common use of “global community” is the extreme environmentalist groups that are really a conglomerate of groups that hate capitalism and freedom. The major problem with this “community” is there are no mutual common goals any of us share. We may think the world wants clean air and water for example but all you have to do is visit China, Russia, North Korea, Cuba, and you understand this is not true. Most non capitalist countries are the most egregious polluters in the world. The governments that are the most dictorial and not democratic are the biggest polluters in the world, and we are lead to believe we all share a common future. We don’t. So when people try to sell an idea by playing to your sense of “global community” there is no such community. As a famous politician once said, “all politics is local.” This same concept should be applied to “communities” as well.

Any government supported “community’ is compulsory and is a danger to our freedom and prosperity. The healthcare debacle that was just deemed constitutional is being argued that it is good for Americans because it takes care of the poor, minority, uninsured, place the group here “community.” The problem is it destroys the individual. Government “communities” impose their will, rules and regulations on every individual, and we can’t escape the government community. So in reality it is not a community but a prison.

“Fairness” is another term often leveraged by the big government types to implement more government agencies to decide what is fair for everyone. So, what is fair for everyone? Should we all make the same amount of money no matter what our job is? What is a fair wage? Is it fair that some people live in a bigger home? Own a boat? Own a business? What is a fair? And most important who decides?

“The “rich” should be made to pay their fair share.” What is the fair share? Who decides what is rich? Is $30K, $50K, $75K, $100K, etc… rich? For someone making minimum wage $75K may seem rich but who are they to decide? You see it all becomes arbitrary and someone must decide the rules. Is that the government “community”? Is it fair to tax a man more because he works harder and becomes more successful? If we continue to tax success will we get more or less of it?

It can all seem fair as long as you are not targeted by the “fairness community.” That is why the constitution, capitalism, and the free markets are so effective. The constitution protects the individual from oppressive government. Capitalism rewards individuals who work hard and success is subject to the laws of the market. The market is colorblind, gender blind, sexuality blind, and has no interest in your title, resume, or past accomplishments. It is a mechanism that holds the individual or company accountable to their customers every day. There is no government bureaucrat picking winners and losers based on politics. Hard work, merit, reputation, and quality drive success. You can’t legislate success no matter how much you want to help others. Individuals must choose to be successful, communities can’t impose it.

Community and fairness can sound really good but they don’t work in the context of government. What is so hard to understand?     

What is “Fairness”?

This President is obsessed with the term “fairness.” He is especially fond of using the term when it comes to “paying the fair share of the tax burden.” If you listen to the rhetoric you would think that someone is not paying their fair share of taxes to support the bloated federal bureaucracy and programs. But numbers don’t lie. The top 1% of wage earners pay 38% of the federal income taxes. Forty percent (40%) of wage earners pay no federal income tax. But that 40% receive the largest transfer of wealth through federal programs like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, food stamps, subsidized student loans, federal mortgage tax breaks, the EIC earned income credit, and the list goes on.

So what is the definition of fair? “Free from bias or injustice; evenhandedness; impartial; consistent with rules, logic, or ethics; just and honest…”

If we look at how the federal government develops every program they administer they are dripping in bias toward a group, whether it’s the poor, the rich, ethnic, or age bias. The tax system is anything but evenhanded or impartial if you look at the thousands of loopholes, and to associate the words, ethics, just or honest with a federal bureaucrat or politician is laughable.

If this president or any politician was interested in fairness they would be discussing how to make all of our taxes flat and a % of income. So if I earn $10,000 I pay $1000 income taxes, 100,000 I pay $10,000 income taxes, and if I make $1,000,000 I pay $100,000 in income taxes. That would be fair. It is consistent, non-bias, impartial, ethical, just, honest, and logical. What is hard to understand about a system like this?

Implied in the President’s rhetoric is that somehow making more money or being more successful than others is unfair. He consistently targets “the richest and most successful” amongst us to do more because he believes they have received more from others. How so? This is a concept that sounds good but when you boil it down it makes no sense whatsoever.

People that make more money and are more successful have usually worked harder, used knowledge in a more effective way, and the market has rewarded their work or ideas by freely purchasing them in volume. To suggest that because they live in America and have the opportunity to become rich because they live here is a stretch to associate that with getting “help from the government” as this President often states. He declares if “it wasn’t for the government the most successful amongst us would not be successful. The rules and regulations, roads and bridges, internet and telephone lines would not be available without government help.” With logic like this the sun would not come up if it were not for the science books stating it as a fact. The logic is stretched, tortured and in reality a lie. Even if you believe this, everyone that is American still has had that same “help” but have not succeeded because of it. So again is it fair?

This is class warfare in a nutshell. Play to people’s envy and jealousy to win favor. That is the strategy of this administration to win another four years. In the interest of “fairness” I think this president has had four years at the helm, we need to spread the wealth of the presidency to someone else in the next four years. After all it’s only fair, right?