The Use Of The Term “Fair” As Virtue-Signaling

[NightFox]

That's not the case when both you and your business partner are subject to draconian terms of trade imposed upon your voluntary transactions with each other by the state.

Chinese businesses and American businesses don't have issues with each other, if they did they wouldn't do business with each other; the issues are with the idiotic rules and fees imposed upon their transactions with one another by the Chinese and American governments.

So we aren't free market capitalists?

Spare me your ham handed attempts to put words into my mouth,

I did not say you said that. I asked you a question. That is how this works. You say something and I ask questions based upon what you said.

I guess I forgot to remove the "I was born yesterday" sticker from my forehead, don't play stupid, you asked a leading question as if it was a valid conclusion to what I posted, it's an old deflection trick that people that just had their assertions invalidated by reason attempt to use.

It's a simple question. You either know or you don't.

Yes, it's a "simple" question which is appropriate considering the source.

On the bright side, you earn 12 brownie points for your herculean efforts to deflect from the fact that you obviously didn't understand that the Sino-U.S. trade relationship was about as far from a "perfect example of the free market" as one can get without taking a trip to Mars.

They have something we want and we trade them money for that. Is that not how it is supposed to work?

Who is "we"? Who is "them"?

.. and no that's not how it is "supposed to work", International Trade is supposed to work based on comparative advantage so that each party to the transaction benefits from the lower opportunity cost afforded by trading for something from a producer than can produce at a lower cost than can be accomplished domestically; it's how trade ultimately produces wealth.

Ciao

 

[Dragonlady]

So we aren't free market capitalists?

Spare me your ham handed attempts to put words into my mouth,

I did not say you said that. I asked you a question. That is how this works. You say something and I ask questions based upon what you said.

I guess I forgot to remove the "I was born yesterday" sticker from my forehead, don't play stupid, you asked a leading question as if it was a valid conclusion to what I posted, it's an old deflection trick that people that just had their assertions invalidated by reason attempt to use.

It's a simple question. You either know or you don't.

Yes, it's a "simple" question which is appropriate considering the source.

On the bright side, you earn 12 brownie points for your herculean efforts to deflect from the fact that you obviously didn't understand that the Sino-U.S. trade relationship was about as far from a "perfect example of the free market" as one can get without taking a trip to Mars.

They have something we want and we trade them money for that. Is that not how it is supposed to work?

Who is "we"? Who is "them"?

.. and no that's not how it is "supposed to work", International Trade is supposed to work based on comparative advantage so that each party to the transaction benefits from the lower opportunity cost afforded by trading for something from a producer than can produce at a lower cost than can be accomplished domestically; it's how trade ultimately produces wealth.

Ciao

That's not how trade is supposed to produce wealth. Trade is supposed work like this: You make something I want or need, that I don't or can't make for myself. I agree to buy this from you for a price, or you agree to trade it for something that I make of equal value. If enough people purchase your goods, you get wealthy.

Trade isn't about making goods at a cheaper price so that company owners can increase profits. That's the antithesis of "creating wealth", because now the workers at home have no source of income with which to buy things. Especially when the displaced workers are given no help or supports in retraining or upgrading their skills.

 

[pknopp]

Would this be like Trump constantly yelling that trade with China is not fair even though it's a perfect example of the free market?

How do you figure that trade with China is a "perfect example of the free market" ?

One of the distinguishing characteristics of a free market is the absence of or minimal presence of third party interference (coercion) on voluntary transactions (third party being someone other than the buyer and the seller), are you under the impression that transactions between Chinese and American buyers and sellers enjoys no or minimal third party interference from either Chinese or American authorities? If that is your impression then let me assure you, you are GREATLY mistaken especially on the Chinese side of the equation, the Chinese State is deeply embedded in all aspects of foreign trade and there is literally no part of any transaction (buying or selling) that the State doesn't interfere with.

Free Market......you don't like how a partner wants to enact business, you don't do business with them.

That's not the case when both you and your business partner are subject to draconian terms of trade imposed upon your voluntary transactions with each other by the state.

Chinese businesses and American businesses don't have issues with each other, if they did they wouldn't do business with each other; the issues are with the idiotic rules and fees imposed upon their transactions with one another by the Chinese and American governments.

So we aren't free market capitalists?

Being free market capitalists is actually hurting the USA in these negotiations. When XI ordered Chinese buyers to stop buying US soybeans, overnight all possible orders were cancelled. When Trump told American businesses to find other supply lines, the CEO's told Trump to go fuck himself. The difference being that in an authoritarian dictatorship, what the President says, goes. This is why Xi is able to effectively counter Trump's scattershot approach.

They didn't stop buying soybeans.

China buys more U.S. soybeans, record volume of pork ahead of trade talks

 

[pknopp]

So we aren't free market capitalists?

Spare me your ham handed attempts to put words into my mouth,

I did not say you said that. I asked you a question. That is how this works. You say something and I ask questions based upon what you said.

I guess I forgot to remove the "I was born yesterday" sticker from my forehead, don't play stupid, you asked a leading question as if it was a valid conclusion to what I posted, it's an old deflection trick that people that just had their assertions invalidated by reason attempt to use.

It's a simple question. You either know or you don't.

Yes, it's a "simple" question which is appropriate considering the source.

On the bright side, you earn 12 brownie points for your herculean efforts to deflect from the fact that you obviously didn't understand that the Sino-U.S. trade relationship was about as far from a "perfect example of the free market" as one can get without taking a trip to Mars.

How is this possible in a free market?

.. and no that's not how it is "supposed to work", International Trade is supposed to work based on comparative advantage so that each party to the transaction benefits from the lower opportunity cost afforded by trading for something from a producer than can produce at a lower cost than can be accomplished domestically; it's how trade ultimately produces wealth.

Ciao

LOL, we can provide China lower opportunity costs?

 

[NightFox]

Spare me your ham handed attempts to put words into my mouth,

I did not say you said that. I asked you a question. That is how this works. You say something and I ask questions based upon what you said.

I guess I forgot to remove the "I was born yesterday" sticker from my forehead, don't play stupid, you asked a leading question as if it was a valid conclusion to what I posted, it's an old deflection trick that people that just had their assertions invalidated by reason attempt to use.

It's a simple question. You either know or you don't.

Yes, it's a "simple" question which is appropriate considering the source.

On the bright side, you earn 12 brownie points for your herculean efforts to deflect from the fact that you obviously didn't understand that the Sino-U.S. trade relationship was about as far from a "perfect example of the free market" as one can get without taking a trip to Mars.

They have something we want and we trade them money for that. Is that not how it is supposed to work?

Who is "we"? Who is "them"?

.. and no that's not how it is "supposed to work", International Trade is supposed to work based on comparative advantage so that each party to the transaction benefits from the lower opportunity cost afforded by trading for something from a producer than can produce at a lower cost than can be accomplished domestically; it's how trade ultimately produces wealth.

Ciao

That's not how trade is supposed to produce wealth. Trade is supposed work like this: You make something I want or need, that I don't or can't make for myself. I agree to buy this from you for a price, or you agree to trade it for something that I make of equal value. If enough people purchase your goods, you get wealthy.

You're mistaken, trade produces wealth thusly....

Say you're really efficient at producing apples and working full time at apples you can produce 100 per day, you're not so good at producing oranges and can only produce 50 a day working full time at oranges, if you split your time equally you can product 50 apples and 25 oranges.

I on the other hand am really efficient at producing oranges and can produce 100 per day full time but only 50 apples per day full time, if I split my time I can produce 50 oranges and 25 apples.

Because of the opportunity cost of splitting our time producing both items....

You have a COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE in apples.
I have a COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE in oranges.


If both of us want apples and oranges and split our time producing both we'll end up with 75 apples and 75 oranges collectively, however if we each work full time at what we're best at our collective total will be 100 apples and 100 oranges.


Now if we trade 50 of each for 50 of each,

You end up with 50 apples and 50 oranges instead of the 50 apples and 25 oranges you could have produced on your own.

I end up with 50 apples and 50 oranges instead of the 50 oranges and 25 apples I could have produced on my own.

Thus our trade has produced 25 apples and 25 oranges of wealth that would have otherwise not happened due to the OPPORTUNITY COST imposed on both of us if we didn't stick to what we had a comparative advantage at producing.

Works the same way with Nations, they should stick to producing what they have a comparative advantage producing and trade for goods and services that they don't enjoy an advantage producing, otherwise there is a waste of resources due to opportunity cost (i.e. if I choose to produce X then I will have to produce less of Y).

 

[PoliticalChic]

Over half the Democrats favor socialism over capitalism.....

...because they have been hoodwinked into believing that only government can be "fair."


Absurd, but, if thinking isn't one's strong suit.....one votes Democrat.




8. “Beware of the Good Intentions of Government by the Left, for it removes competition from the free market. It knows what is best…and is intent on taking from the consumer the freedom to choose between competing enterprises. And what is Freedom by the freedom to choose?” Mamet



The 32nd President, perusing and envying Mussolini and Stalin, demanded the same rights as other dictators.

Roosevelt and his New Deal bureaucrats studied Mussolini’s corporatism closely. From “Fortune” magazine: ‘The Corporate state is to Mussolini what the New Deal is to Roosevelt.’(July 1934)

"Rex Tugwell, FDR's economic adviser, was opposed to any private business not controlled by the government. General Hugh Johnson was working with Tugwell on a bill to create the NRA, and gave Perkins (Sec'y of Labor) the book by Rafaello Viglione, "The Corporate State," in which the neat Italian system of dictatorship for the benefit of the people was glowingly described."
Francis Perkins, "The Roosevelt I Knew."
(Better look up who Francis Perkins was, Libs....)


Perkins questioned whether Johnson 'really understood the democratic process..." New Dealers had no problem with the fascist nature of their plans.



People were beginning to recognize the fascist nature of the National Recovery Administration(NRA), code when they saw "... the jailing of a New Jersey tailor named Jack Magid, whose crime was pressing a suit for thirty-five cents when the code fixed the price at forty cents."





No different than what any Fascist would do to his own citizens.

 

[PoliticalChic]

9. The issue on which the question of 'fair' is most ponderous is, of course, taxation.


Tom dick and harry

The sad story of the progressive income tax: Tom, Dick, and Harry.

1. 
   
   “Once upon atime in the land of America, there lived triplet brothers named Tom, Dick, and Harry Class. They were 45 years old, had virtually the same aptitude (skill), and were raised in the same home.
   
   Each was married and had two children. All three were employed as carpenters making $25 per hour, working 50 weeks a year.
   
   
   While they were almost identical in most respects, they had somewhat different preferences and values.
   
   For example, Tom, who worked20hours a week, had a different work ethic from his brothers, Dick and Harry, who each worked60hours per week.
   
   
   Neither Tom’s nor Dick’s wives worked, while Harry’s wife worked 40 hours per week as an office manager making$50,000per year (the same hourly rate as her husband).
   
   
   Tom and Dick spent all of their income, and were relying on Social Security to take care of them when they retired.
   
   
   
   Harry and his wife, on the other hand, saved most of her after-tax income over many years, gradually accumulating$300,000. They invested this money in bonds and real estate that produced$25,000 a year in interest and rental income. “
   Policy Review Hoover Institution
   
   
   
   Obama: “If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”
   
   
   
   
   a. Which one had the wisest approach to their finances?… Tom, Dick, or Harry Class?
   
   b. From which one should we ‘redistribute”?
   
   c. And, how much? ....don't forget to be 'fair.'

The Progressive Income Tax: A Tale of Three Brothers

 

[Questioner]

Only the free market, capitalism, determines correctly what is fair. Let’s prove it.



1.The unspoken assumption is that there is something morally wrong with inequalities. Where is the explanation of what would be a ‘fair share’ for the wealthy to give up? Irving Kristol, as editor of ‘Public Interest,’ wrote to professors who had written about the unfairness of income distribution, asking them to write an article as to what a ‘fair distribution’ would be; he has never gotten that article.
Irving Kristol, “Neoconservative: the Autobiography of an Idea,” p. 166

Why don't you try....what is the right level of taxation????



2. “Here’s the problem: The word “fair” doesn’t mean “justice” or “equity” or, indeed, anything very specific. Instead, it’s become a sort of all-purpose statement of moral superiority—superiority tinged, paradoxically, with victimhood.

We’ve developed a “fairness” obsession.

But what do we mean when we use that word? Do we mean “justice”? Do we mean “equality”? Do we mean “need”? Or do we mean something else?

Suppose you and Jane buy a cake together. You pay $6, and Jane pays $4. What would be the “fair” way to split it up? You could do it on the basis of proportionality—in other words, you get 60 percent of the cake and Jane gets 40 percent. Or you could do it on the basis of strict egalitarianism—half each, regardless of who paid what. Or you could do it on the basis of wealth. Jane has much less money than you for non-essentials like cake, so maybe she should get the larger share.

A case can be made for each approach. But the beauty of the word “fair” is that it doesn’t require you to come down clearly in favor of any of them. It gives you the cover of ambiguity.

So, for example, when a politician says, “We want the rich to pay their fair share,” he doesn’t usually mean that he wants the rich to pay taxes at the same rate as everyone else. He means that he wants them to pay extra. The word “fair” lets him present higher rates of taxation as a form of justice.

But only if we don’t think about it too hard.”
What Is "Fair"?



And ‘thinking’ isn’t a Liberal value or gift. But….there is a way for society to determine what is fair.

And I’ll explain it….

Nope, the market doesn't get to decide that assassins for hire, or child pornography or molestation rings are a "fair" means of economic exchange, such as what's said to exist on the "DarkNet" and the like.

That's decided by the Federal or State law (or by God, nature, or whatever other source one wishes to attribute to such a thing), people aren't "free" to engage in degenerate types of market exchanges like that, and decide "for themselves" whether or not that is fair; and if they don't care, then they can risk state retribution, much as they would have in legal systems or national governments in history, whether contemporary, ancient (e.x. Biblical), or otherwise.

As far as the text of the US Constitution goes; there are specific purposes in regards to the Federal, wheras the rest is under the delegation of the states to decide, and there's little to nor more elaboration on it than that.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Only the free market, capitalism, determines correctly what is fair. Let’s prove it.



1.The unspoken assumption is that there is something morally wrong with inequalities. Where is the explanation of what would be a ‘fair share’ for the wealthy to give up? Irving Kristol, as editor of ‘Public Interest,’ wrote to professors who had written about the unfairness of income distribution, asking them to write an article as to what a ‘fair distribution’ would be; he has never gotten that article.
Irving Kristol, “Neoconservative: the Autobiography of an Idea,” p. 166

Why don't you try....what is the right level of taxation????



2. “Here’s the problem: The word “fair” doesn’t mean “justice” or “equity” or, indeed, anything very specific. Instead, it’s become a sort of all-purpose statement of moral superiority—superiority tinged, paradoxically, with victimhood.

We’ve developed a “fairness” obsession.

But what do we mean when we use that word? Do we mean “justice”? Do we mean “equality”? Do we mean “need”? Or do we mean something else?

Suppose you and Jane buy a cake together. You pay $6, and Jane pays $4. What would be the “fair” way to split it up? You could do it on the basis of proportionality—in other words, you get 60 percent of the cake and Jane gets 40 percent. Or you could do it on the basis of strict egalitarianism—half each, regardless of who paid what. Or you could do it on the basis of wealth. Jane has much less money than you for non-essentials like cake, so maybe she should get the larger share.

A case can be made for each approach. But the beauty of the word “fair” is that it doesn’t require you to come down clearly in favor of any of them. It gives you the cover of ambiguity.

So, for example, when a politician says, “We want the rich to pay their fair share,” he doesn’t usually mean that he wants the rich to pay taxes at the same rate as everyone else. He means that he wants them to pay extra. The word “fair” lets him present higher rates of taxation as a form of justice.

But only if we don’t think about it too hard.”
What Is "Fair"?



And ‘thinking’ isn’t a Liberal value or gift. But….there is a way for society to determine what is fair.

And I’ll explain it….

Nope, the market doesn't get to decide that assassins for hire, or child pornography or molestation rings are a "fair" means of economic exchange, such as what's said to exist on the "DarkNet" and the like.

That's decided by the Federal or State law (or by God, nature, or whatever other source one wishes to attribute to such a thing), people aren't "free" to engage in degenerate types of market exchanges like that, and decide "for themselves" whether or not that is fair; and if they don't care, then they can risk state retribution, much as they would have in legal systems or national governments in history, whether contemporary, ancient (e.x. Biblical), or otherwise.

As far as the text of the US Constitution goes; there are specific purposes in regards to the Federal, wheras the rest is under the delegation of the states to decide, and there's little to nor more elaboration on it than that.

Please learn to read the post you link to before you attempt to response.

It works better that way.

 

[Questioner]

Only the free market, capitalism, determines correctly what is fair. Let’s prove it.



1.The unspoken assumption is that there is something morally wrong with inequalities. Where is the explanation of what would be a ‘fair share’ for the wealthy to give up? Irving Kristol, as editor of ‘Public Interest,’ wrote to professors who had written about the unfairness of income distribution, asking them to write an article as to what a ‘fair distribution’ would be; he has never gotten that article.
Irving Kristol, “Neoconservative: the Autobiography of an Idea,” p. 166

Why don't you try....what is the right level of taxation????



2. “Here’s the problem: The word “fair” doesn’t mean “justice” or “equity” or, indeed, anything very specific. Instead, it’s become a sort of all-purpose statement of moral superiority—superiority tinged, paradoxically, with victimhood.

We’ve developed a “fairness” obsession.

But what do we mean when we use that word? Do we mean “justice”? Do we mean “equality”? Do we mean “need”? Or do we mean something else?

Suppose you and Jane buy a cake together. You pay $6, and Jane pays $4. What would be the “fair” way to split it up? You could do it on the basis of proportionality—in other words, you get 60 percent of the cake and Jane gets 40 percent. Or you could do it on the basis of strict egalitarianism—half each, regardless of who paid what. Or you could do it on the basis of wealth. Jane has much less money than you for non-essentials like cake, so maybe she should get the larger share.

A case can be made for each approach. But the beauty of the word “fair” is that it doesn’t require you to come down clearly in favor of any of them. It gives you the cover of ambiguity.

So, for example, when a politician says, “We want the rich to pay their fair share,” he doesn’t usually mean that he wants the rich to pay taxes at the same rate as everyone else. He means that he wants them to pay extra. The word “fair” lets him present higher rates of taxation as a form of justice.

But only if we don’t think about it too hard.”
What Is "Fair"?



And ‘thinking’ isn’t a Liberal value or gift. But….there is a way for society to determine what is fair.

And I’ll explain it….

Nope, the market doesn't get to decide that assassins for hire, or child pornography or molestation rings are a "fair" means of economic exchange, such as what's said to exist on the "DarkNet" and the like.

That's decided by the Federal or State law (or by God, nature, or whatever other source one wishes to attribute to such a thing), people aren't "free" to engage in degenerate types of market exchanges like that, and decide "for themselves" whether or not that is fair; and if they don't care, then they can risk state retribution, much as they would have in legal systems or national governments in history, whether contemporary, ancient (e.x. Biblical), or otherwise.

As far as the text of the US Constitution goes; there are specific purposes in regards to the Federal, wheras the rest is under the delegation of the states to decide, and there's little to nor more elaboration on it than that.

Please learn to read the post you link to before you attempt to response.

It works better that way.

You said the market has some inherent ability or power to determine "correctly" what is fair; I'm saying, no they don't - there are "markets" that deal in child pornography, assassinations, and so forth, and no, as far as the law and state is concerned, they don't get to "decide" that is fair on their own.

Such a view is akin to anarchy or nihilism, and absurd - in practice, people may make their own decisions, but in theory, not all decisions are equally valid and meritious, much as I'm sure no one would say that a "private enterprise" that deals in child pornography or snuff films is "equal" to a legitimate business.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Only the free market, capitalism, determines correctly what is fair. Let’s prove it.



1.The unspoken assumption is that there is something morally wrong with inequalities. Where is the explanation of what would be a ‘fair share’ for the wealthy to give up? Irving Kristol, as editor of ‘Public Interest,’ wrote to professors who had written about the unfairness of income distribution, asking them to write an article as to what a ‘fair distribution’ would be; he has never gotten that article.
Irving Kristol, “Neoconservative: the Autobiography of an Idea,” p. 166

Why don't you try....what is the right level of taxation????



2. “Here’s the problem: The word “fair” doesn’t mean “justice” or “equity” or, indeed, anything very specific. Instead, it’s become a sort of all-purpose statement of moral superiority—superiority tinged, paradoxically, with victimhood.

We’ve developed a “fairness” obsession.

But what do we mean when we use that word? Do we mean “justice”? Do we mean “equality”? Do we mean “need”? Or do we mean something else?

Suppose you and Jane buy a cake together. You pay $6, and Jane pays $4. What would be the “fair” way to split it up? You could do it on the basis of proportionality—in other words, you get 60 percent of the cake and Jane gets 40 percent. Or you could do it on the basis of strict egalitarianism—half each, regardless of who paid what. Or you could do it on the basis of wealth. Jane has much less money than you for non-essentials like cake, so maybe she should get the larger share.

A case can be made for each approach. But the beauty of the word “fair” is that it doesn’t require you to come down clearly in favor of any of them. It gives you the cover of ambiguity.

So, for example, when a politician says, “We want the rich to pay their fair share,” he doesn’t usually mean that he wants the rich to pay taxes at the same rate as everyone else. He means that he wants them to pay extra. The word “fair” lets him present higher rates of taxation as a form of justice.

But only if we don’t think about it too hard.”
What Is "Fair"?



And ‘thinking’ isn’t a Liberal value or gift. But….there is a way for society to determine what is fair.

And I’ll explain it….

Nope, the market doesn't get to decide that assassins for hire, or child pornography or molestation rings are a "fair" means of economic exchange, such as what's said to exist on the "DarkNet" and the like.

That's decided by the Federal or State law (or by God, nature, or whatever other source one wishes to attribute to such a thing), people aren't "free" to engage in degenerate types of market exchanges like that, and decide "for themselves" whether or not that is fair; and if they don't care, then they can risk state retribution, much as they would have in legal systems or national governments in history, whether contemporary, ancient (e.x. Biblical), or otherwise.

As far as the text of the US Constitution goes; there are specific purposes in regards to the Federal, wheras the rest is under the delegation of the states to decide, and there's little to nor more elaboration on it than that.

Please learn to read the post you link to before you attempt to response.

It works better that way.

You said the market has some inherent ability or power to determine "correctly" what is fair; I'm saying, no they don't - there are "markets" that deal in child pornography, assassinations, and so forth, and no, as far as the law and state is concerned, they don't get to "decide" that is fair on their own.

Such a view is akin to anarchy or nihilism, and absurd - in practice, people may make their own decisions, but in theory, not all decisions are equally valid and meritious, much as I'm sure no one would say that a "private enterprise" that deals in child pornography or snuff films is "equal" to a legitimate business.

Keep in mind that you are mentally qualified for handicapped parking.

 

[jc456]

So PC, did anyone ever give you a definition of Fair? I really don't wish to read all of these. That is my only interest in this thread.

 

[Questioner]

Only the free market, capitalism, determines correctly what is fair. Let’s prove it.



1.The unspoken assumption is that there is something morally wrong with inequalities. Where is the explanation of what would be a ‘fair share’ for the wealthy to give up? Irving Kristol, as editor of ‘Public Interest,’ wrote to professors who had written about the unfairness of income distribution, asking them to write an article as to what a ‘fair distribution’ would be; he has never gotten that article.
Irving Kristol, “Neoconservative: the Autobiography of an Idea,” p. 166

Why don't you try....what is the right level of taxation????



2. “Here’s the problem: The word “fair” doesn’t mean “justice” or “equity” or, indeed, anything very specific. Instead, it’s become a sort of all-purpose statement of moral superiority—superiority tinged, paradoxically, with victimhood.

We’ve developed a “fairness” obsession.

But what do we mean when we use that word? Do we mean “justice”? Do we mean “equality”? Do we mean “need”? Or do we mean something else?

Suppose you and Jane buy a cake together. You pay $6, and Jane pays $4. What would be the “fair” way to split it up? You could do it on the basis of proportionality—in other words, you get 60 percent of the cake and Jane gets 40 percent. Or you could do it on the basis of strict egalitarianism—half each, regardless of who paid what. Or you could do it on the basis of wealth. Jane has much less money than you for non-essentials like cake, so maybe she should get the larger share.

A case can be made for each approach. But the beauty of the word “fair” is that it doesn’t require you to come down clearly in favor of any of them. It gives you the cover of ambiguity.

So, for example, when a politician says, “We want the rich to pay their fair share,” he doesn’t usually mean that he wants the rich to pay taxes at the same rate as everyone else. He means that he wants them to pay extra. The word “fair” lets him present higher rates of taxation as a form of justice.

But only if we don’t think about it too hard.”
What Is "Fair"?



And ‘thinking’ isn’t a Liberal value or gift. But….there is a way for society to determine what is fair.

And I’ll explain it….

Nope, the market doesn't get to decide that assassins for hire, or child pornography or molestation rings are a "fair" means of economic exchange, such as what's said to exist on the "DarkNet" and the like.

That's decided by the Federal or State law (or by God, nature, or whatever other source one wishes to attribute to such a thing), people aren't "free" to engage in degenerate types of market exchanges like that, and decide "for themselves" whether or not that is fair; and if they don't care, then they can risk state retribution, much as they would have in legal systems or national governments in history, whether contemporary, ancient (e.x. Biblical), or otherwise.

As far as the text of the US Constitution goes; there are specific purposes in regards to the Federal, wheras the rest is under the delegation of the states to decide, and there's little to nor more elaboration on it than that.

Please learn to read the post you link to before you attempt to response.

It works better that way.

You said the market has some inherent ability or power to determine "correctly" what is fair; I'm saying, no they don't - there are "markets" that deal in child pornography, assassinations, and so forth, and no, as far as the law and state is concerned, they don't get to "decide" that is fair on their own.

Such a view is akin to anarchy or nihilism, and absurd - in practice, people may make their own decisions, but in theory, not all decisions are equally valid and meritious, much as I'm sure no one would say that a "private enterprise" that deals in child pornography or snuff films is "equal" to a legitimate business.

Keep in mind that you are mentally qualified for handicapped parking.

And no, that's not the system of government established by the Framers - they most definitely asserted that their form of government, based on federal republicanism and a system of elected representatives and a system of checks and balance was indeed superior to what lesser men and women may have wanted, and they most certainly had a right to decide it for others, not just "for themselves".

 

[Questioner]

So PC, did anyone ever give you a definition of Fair? I really don't wish to read all of these. That is my only interest in this thread.

If the argument was some perfect, mathematical definition of "fair", then no, but that's not how courts work anyway, whether civil, criminal or otherwise; in some ambiguous situations the people who work in the courts use their own subjective judgment or delegation.

You could make the same case about any system of government, for example how do criminal courts perfectly defining what's "fair" or "just" in punishing crimes?

There is no "perfect" way, but I believe most reasonable people would agree that punishing murder and child rape is far superior than allowing those types of things.

 

[jc456]

Here is what nobody is willing to say: It is eminently FAIR that the brightest people who work hardest and are most productive should make the most money. Conversely, people who are dullards, lazy, and make horrible life decisions should be impecunious, or worse.

And that is generally the state of Man in the U.S.

In a nation of 330 million people, there are lots of exceptions - scoundrels who make millions and hard-working honest people who struggle - but generally, people get what they deserve. The rise of "inequality" is largely the result of technology, which multiplies the financial rewards of innovation, productivity, and good fortune.

what is it you mean inequality? everyone has the same shot at life. what one does with their life is up to them. no one guarantees anyone anything accept an equal opportunity. even blacks have those opportunities. If they didn't, then no black would have made it in life. That's a fallacy presented and carried by the left. Also, some people have different skills, desires aspirations, and skills.

 

[jc456]

Only the free market, capitalism, determines correctly what is fair. Let’s prove it.



1.The unspoken assumption is that there is something morally wrong with inequalities. Where is the explanation of what would be a ‘fair share’ for the wealthy to give up? Irving Kristol, as editor of ‘Public Interest,’ wrote to professors who had written about the unfairness of income distribution, asking them to write an article as to what a ‘fair distribution’ would be; he has never gotten that article.
Irving Kristol, “Neoconservative: the Autobiography of an Idea,” p. 166

Why don't you try....what is the right level of taxation????



2. “Here’s the problem: The word “fair” doesn’t mean “justice” or “equity” or, indeed, anything very specific. Instead, it’s become a sort of all-purpose statement of moral superiority—superiority tinged, paradoxically, with victimhood.

We’ve developed a “fairness” obsession.

But what do we mean when we use that word? Do we mean “justice”? Do we mean “equality”? Do we mean “need”? Or do we mean something else?

Suppose you and Jane buy a cake together. You pay $6, and Jane pays $4. What would be the “fair” way to split it up? You could do it on the basis of proportionality—in other words, you get 60 percent of the cake and Jane gets 40 percent. Or you could do it on the basis of strict egalitarianism—half each, regardless of who paid what. Or you could do it on the basis of wealth. Jane has much less money than you for non-essentials like cake, so maybe she should get the larger share.

A case can be made for each approach. But the beauty of the word “fair” is that it doesn’t require you to come down clearly in favor of any of them. It gives you the cover of ambiguity.

So, for example, when a politician says, “We want the rich to pay their fair share,” he doesn’t usually mean that he wants the rich to pay taxes at the same rate as everyone else. He means that he wants them to pay extra. The word “fair” lets him present higher rates of taxation as a form of justice.

But only if we don’t think about it too hard.”
What Is "Fair"?



And ‘thinking’ isn’t a Liberal value or gift. But….there is a way for society to determine what is fair.

And I’ll explain it….

Nope, the market doesn't get to decide that assassins for hire, or child pornography or molestation rings are a "fair" means of economic exchange, such as what's said to exist on the "DarkNet" and the like.

That's decided by the Federal or State law (or by God, nature, or whatever other source one wishes to attribute to such a thing), people aren't "free" to engage in degenerate types of market exchanges like that, and decide "for themselves" whether or not that is fair; and if they don't care, then they can risk state retribution, much as they would have in legal systems or national governments in history, whether contemporary, ancient (e.x. Biblical), or otherwise.

As far as the text of the US Constitution goes; there are specific purposes in regards to the Federal, wheras the rest is under the delegation of the states to decide, and there's little to nor more elaboration on it than that.

Please learn to read the post you link to before you attempt to response.

It works better that way.

You said the market has some inherent ability or power to determine "correctly" what is fair; I'm saying, no they don't - there are "markets" that deal in child pornography, assassinations, and so forth, and no, as far as the law and state is concerned, they don't get to "decide" that is fair on their own.

Such a view is akin to anarchy or nihilism, and absurd - in practice, people may make their own decisions, but in theory, not all decisions are equally valid and meritious, much as I'm sure no one would say that a "private enterprise" that deals in child pornography or snuff films is "equal" to a legitimate business.

Keep in mind that you are mentally qualified for handicapped parking.

And no, that's not the system of government established by the Framers - they most definitely asserted that their form of government, based on federal republicanism and a system of elected representatives and a system of checks and balance was indeed superior to what lesser men and women may have wanted, and they most certainly had a right to decide it for others, not just "for themselves".

and? don't like it, leave! it's really quite simple. why is that so complicated for you all?

Are you saying there should have never been leaders? How do you supposed people got here?

 

[jc456]

So PC, did anyone ever give you a definition of Fair? I really don't wish to read all of these. That is my only interest in this thread.

If the argument was some perfect, mathematical definition of "fair", then no, but that's not how courts work anyway, whether civil, criminal or otherwise; in some ambiguous situations the people who work in the courts use their own subjective judgment or delegation.

You could make the same case about any system of government, for example how do criminal courts perfectly defining what's "fair" or "just" in punishing crimes?

There is no "perfect" way, but I believe most reasonable people would agree that punishing murder and child rape is far superior than allowing those types of things.

well, I wanted a leftist definition, the one they throw out there 365 days a year. you got one of those?

 

[Questioner]

Nope, the market doesn't get to decide that assassins for hire, or child pornography or molestation rings are a "fair" means of economic exchange, such as what's said to exist on the "DarkNet" and the like.

That's decided by the Federal or State law (or by God, nature, or whatever other source one wishes to attribute to such a thing), people aren't "free" to engage in degenerate types of market exchanges like that, and decide "for themselves" whether or not that is fair; and if they don't care, then they can risk state retribution, much as they would have in legal systems or national governments in history, whether contemporary, ancient (e.x. Biblical), or otherwise.

As far as the text of the US Constitution goes; there are specific purposes in regards to the Federal, wheras the rest is under the delegation of the states to decide, and there's little to nor more elaboration on it than that.

Please learn to read the post you link to before you attempt to response.

It works better that way.

You said the market has some inherent ability or power to determine "correctly" what is fair; I'm saying, no they don't - there are "markets" that deal in child pornography, assassinations, and so forth, and no, as far as the law and state is concerned, they don't get to "decide" that is fair on their own.

Such a view is akin to anarchy or nihilism, and absurd - in practice, people may make their own decisions, but in theory, not all decisions are equally valid and meritious, much as I'm sure no one would say that a "private enterprise" that deals in child pornography or snuff films is "equal" to a legitimate business.

Keep in mind that you are mentally qualified for handicapped parking.

And no, that's not the system of government established by the Framers - they most definitely asserted that their form of government, based on federal republicanism and a system of elected representatives and a system of checks and balance was indeed superior to what lesser men and women may have wanted, and they most certainly had a right to decide it for others, not just "for themselves".

and? don't like it, leave! '\

Or change it.

it's really quite simple. why is that so complicated for you all?

I don't think you comprehended anything that I said.

I just said that, no the market is not "free" to determine what is fair, they have some degree of restrictions legally imposed on them, and this is a good thing, and often, no, the "market" either doesn't know or doesn't care what is good for it or for others.

A market can't decide that dealing in child pornography is a "fair" forum of business in a civilized nation; maybe in sub-Saharan Africa they can, but not in the USA or any 1st world country.

 

[jc456]

Please learn to read the post you link to before you attempt to response.

It works better that way.

You said the market has some inherent ability or power to determine "correctly" what is fair; I'm saying, no they don't - there are "markets" that deal in child pornography, assassinations, and so forth, and no, as far as the law and state is concerned, they don't get to "decide" that is fair on their own.

Such a view is akin to anarchy or nihilism, and absurd - in practice, people may make their own decisions, but in theory, not all decisions are equally valid and meritious, much as I'm sure no one would say that a "private enterprise" that deals in child pornography or snuff films is "equal" to a legitimate business.

Keep in mind that you are mentally qualified for handicapped parking.

And no, that's not the system of government established by the Framers - they most definitely asserted that their form of government, based on federal republicanism and a system of elected representatives and a system of checks and balance was indeed superior to what lesser men and women may have wanted, and they most certainly had a right to decide it for others, not just "for themselves".

and? don't like it, leave! '\

Or change it.

it's really quite simple. why is that so complicated for you all?

I don't think you comprehended anything that I said.

I just said that, no the market is not "free" to determine what is fair, they have some degree of restrictions legally imposed on them, and this is a good thing, and often, no, the "market" either doesn't know or doesn't care what is good for it or for others.

A market can't decide that dealing in child pornography is a "fair" forum of business in a civilized nation; maybe in sub-Saharan Africa they can, but not in the USA or any 1st world country.

so why do the left use the word everyday? you know, the rich don't pay their 'fair' share. Explain the use of the word is my ask.

 

[Questioner]

You said the market has some inherent ability or power to determine "correctly" what is fair; I'm saying, no they don't - there are "markets" that deal in child pornography, assassinations, and so forth, and no, as far as the law and state is concerned, they don't get to "decide" that is fair on their own.

Such a view is akin to anarchy or nihilism, and absurd - in practice, people may make their own decisions, but in theory, not all decisions are equally valid and meritious, much as I'm sure no one would say that a "private enterprise" that deals in child pornography or snuff films is "equal" to a legitimate business.

Keep in mind that you are mentally qualified for handicapped parking.

And no, that's not the system of government established by the Framers - they most definitely asserted that their form of government, based on federal republicanism and a system of elected representatives and a system of checks and balance was indeed superior to what lesser men and women may have wanted, and they most certainly had a right to decide it for others, not just "for themselves".

and? don't like it, leave! '\

Or change it.

it's really quite simple. why is that so complicated for you all?

I don't think you comprehended anything that I said.

I just said that, no the market is not "free" to determine what is fair, they have some degree of restrictions legally imposed on them, and this is a good thing, and often, no, the "market" either doesn't know or doesn't care what is good for it or for others.

A market can't decide that dealing in child pornography is a "fair" forum of business in a civilized nation; maybe in sub-Saharan Africa they can, but not in the USA or any 1st world country.

so why do the left use the word everyday? you know, the rich don't pay their 'fair' share. Explain the use of the word is my ask.

I could care less about that, or what ambigious idea of "fair share" they're hocking - the purpose of taxes was never to "punish" the rich simply out of envy or jealously anyway, so I consider idiots like that irrelevant to any serious discussion on taxes; much as I do anarchists or other idiots making irrational, hyperbolic, and historically and contemporarily absurd or inaccurate claims..