
The fallacy of fairness - te_platt
http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2010/02/09/the_fallacy_of_fairness
======
SamAtt
I think Thomas Sowell (the author) is one of the smartest guys out there but
he’s wrong here. He’s arguing that we, as a society, can never make things
completely fair so liberal’s endless social agenda to make things fair is a
waste.

But that’s a straw man because the debate is about where the line is. Even the
most rabid liberal would agree there is a point where the playing field
becomes as level as we can make it. The questions are “Where is that point?”
and “Will [whatever program that’s being discussed] have any meaningful
impact?”

Attacking the word fairness doesn’t really answer either of those questions.
Meaning his argument only appeals to those who agree with him and think we've
already done as much as we can.

~~~
uuilly
He is arguing that policies that promote fairness should accept that equality
of opportunity will not result in equality of outcome. He often writes about
ways we can further equalize opportunity, such as giving parents vouchers that
can be redeemed at public or private schools. The essays are about two
different definitions of fairness not about whether or not the world is fair
enough.

------
gyardley
This article unfortunately muddled 'equality of opportunity' fairness with
'equality of outcome' fairness, which are two very different things.

When Sowell complains that any disparity in outcomes is inappropriately being
attacked as unfair, I'm 100% behind him. When Sowell argues that equality of
opportunity can never perfectly be achieved due to factors we have no control
over, I'm also 100% behind him. But that doesn't mean we should reject all
programs designed to improve equality of opportunity - instead, they should be
carefully evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

------
uuilly
It's a 4 part essay, the rest are here:
[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/author/thomas_sowe...](http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/author/thomas_sowell/)

~~~
gyardley
Thanks for this. Sowell's intentions are much clearer - and equality of
outcome separated from equality of opportunity - when the four essays are read
together.

~~~
uuilly
I've taken to using the realclearpolitics rss feeds b/c you can subscribe by
writer rather than source. I get my news by following about a dozen or so
writers who are syndicated all over the place.

------
ShabbyDoo
I found that a sure way to get downmodded on reddit, etc. is to ask someone
who used the word "fair" to define it in the context used.

"A flat tax is a fair tax." Great, why does having a zero second derivative
make a tax fair? That so few feel any need to answer such a question worries
me.

~~~
ewjordan
I've found that pretty much any conceivable tax curve can be considered "fair"
for some definition of the word. The disturbing thing is, most of those
definitions are really not that ridiculous if you make the case for them well
enough.

IMO the flat tax has such great appeal because it's pretty idiot proof to
explain, not because people really think it's fair - under most money ->
utility mappings it's extremely regressive, and I think even its proponents
realize this, but it doesn't bother them because of the idea that regressive
tax structure is a net win even for the poor by keeping money in the hands of
the people that can do the most efficient things with it.

But even getting into that debate involves thinking, which people do precious
little of when it comes to politics...the notion that "fair" can be achieved
with a simple one-sentence statement is so appealing that it's hard to make
headway in the argument.

~~~
evgen
_it doesn't bother [flat tax proponents] because of the idea that regressive
tax structure is a net win even for the poor by keeping money in the hands of
the people that can do the most efficient things with it._

Also worth noting is that fact that flat tax proponents are usually the people
in whose hands this money will be kept :)

~~~
jff
Of course, the idea is that it won't be kept in those hands for too long--or
rather, the same money won't stay in those hands for long.

Hey, somebody has to buy those yachts!

------
michaelkeenan
"As you know, fairness is a concept that was invented so that children and
idiots could participate in arguments." - Scott Adams
(<http://www.dilbert.com/blog/entry/fairtaxes/>)

------
nazgulnarsil
economics will forever be burdened with idiotic politics until people get it
through their heads that ethics is SEPARATE.

people like Thomas Sowell and Milton Friedman seem eternally trying to hammer
this point across to people in their essays and interviews. economics tells
you that if you do A, B will happen. this is a value free statement. it could
be cake or nazis. there are millions of permutations of the following idiocy:
"B is efficient! therefore B is good!". libertarians are often equally as
guilty of this as others I'm sad to say. I see this as another manifestation
of trying to create a magic system that removes human judgment from the
equation of governing human affairs. If we can just use X to judge things it
will remove corruption! X can be: religious rules, mathematical models (the
idea of 'utility' hides value judgments behind math), even an AI. In this case
we simply have 'economic efficiency'. I'm sure there's more examples. we will
never get anything done until we start seeing these types of things as
engineering problems rather than moral ones.

------
melipone
Fairness is an abstraction, just like circles and triangles are abstractions.
They are no less real. We can always aspire to fairness to guide our lives
just like mathematics is used to explain the physical world.

