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

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.


I thought I gave away the solution early on.


It is the innumerable voluntary transactions known as the free market.


The constrained view is that no human beings, nor any conglomeration of same, are omnipotent, nor omniscient, nor omnibenevolent. We are even incapable of knowing the true nature of the problems we face. This may be called the Tragic View. The values of one generation are seen later as absurd: slavery, phenology, lobotomy, women as property, etc.

The answer is the free market. It is not perfect; it is simply better than state control. It is the one that has to respond quickly and effectively to dissatisfaction and to demand.In the free market, if a product or service does not please, it is discontinued. Compare that to government persistence and expansion of programs that proven to have failed decades ago: farm subsidies, aid to Africa, busing, etc.
 
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.


Our view.

But for the Left, they believe the lie that they can produce Utopia....defined as equality of material wealth.


I like this explanation of the fallacy of socialism.

"What if everyone starts off with the same amount of money?


“…. by the end of the first year, some people will have more than others. Guaranteed. Some people, you see, will be careful with what they have. Others won’t. Some people will gamble, others will save. Some will spend lavishly, others will be frugal.

Besides that, some people simply have more of the kind of wealth that can’t be redistributed. Intelligence; education; ambition. Drive, as opposed to: aw, we’re gonna get what we’re gonna get anyway, so let’s just stay on the couch and watch TV. Some people will put a little giddy-up in their get-alongs, and will find ways to improve their own lives.

Some of that will be “unfair,” because some people have more and better resources to tap. Intelligence; talent; family. Even accounting for such differences, though: some people will turn what they have into more, while others will not. Therefore, by the end of the very first year (not to mention the first five or ten) “haves” and “have-nots” will appear.

I know what you’re thinking. Crap. I thought we had it this time. Fairness! And this return to economic inequity will happen, I daresay, even under the strictest Communist policies.

I’ll come back to that.

After ten, twenty, thirty years, those discrepancies will widen. A middle class will form. An upper economic class, and a lower economic class. These classes will not be dead ends: people will be able to move from one to another and back again. But they’ll reappear, despite the original, radical redistribution of wealth.

So: let’s take this exercise further. Rather than a one-time redistribution of wealth, let’s redistribute every year. Every April 23 – Michael Moore’s birthday – all wealth is redistributed. All wages set by Central Command. Everyone is as equal as it’s possible to make them. Even individual advantages are nullified.

Not really, but we’ll come back to that, too.

Obviously, that system does away with any incentive to create. It removes any incentive to save; to be frugal; to work hard. Because no matter what you do, what you get is predetermined.

And yet, by April 22 of the following year, some people will still have more than others. And they’ll keep it.

How can that be? Simple. Even state-enforced economic “equality” did not – cannot – make everyone “equal.” It can only change the attributes that are most important to getting ahead.

Sucking up to your superiors becomes more important than working hard. Figuring out which bureaucrats can do the most for you, and ingratiating yourself to them.

Using the power of government to get you ahead, instead of creating, making, building, selling. Improving technical or academic skills? What for? Improving political skills. That’s what makes a difference.

You may recognize a little of our current system there. More and more, becoming a “have” in our society requires entering the bureaucracy, or getting the bureaucracy on your side.

Even the hard working entrepreneurs and innovators among us increasingly need the bureaucracy’s help. Vast mazes of regulations give bureaucracies vast power over both you and your competitors. Government can make or break an industry. Make or break a company. It can increase the cost of entry beyond plausibility, or it can make that cost go away.

In the free market, wealth comes from work. The closer we move toward socialism, the more wealth comes from power. That’s the difference. The similarity: wealth still exists in relatively few hands.”
What if we just gave everybody the same amount of wealth? | John Hawkins' Right Wing News
 
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.


I thought I gave away the solution early on.


It is the innumerable voluntary transactions known as the free market.


The constrained view is that no human beings, nor any conglomeration of same, are omnipotent, nor omniscient, nor omnibenevolent. We are even incapable of knowing the true nature of the problems we face. This may be called the Tragic View. The values of one generation are seen later as absurd: slavery, phenology, lobotomy, women as property, etc.

The answer is the free market. It is not perfect; it is simply better than state control. It is the one that has to respond quickly and effectively to dissatisfaction and to demand.In the free market, if a product or service does not please, it is discontinued. Compare that to government persistence and expansion of programs that proven to have failed decades ago: farm subsidies, aid to Africa, busing, etc.
oh don't get me wrong, I appreciate what you provided. But you aren't the one spewing the comment that the rich don't pay their 'fair' share. When they actually pay most of what is collected. I have been asking since I got in here for one of these leftists pukes to present the definition of 'fair' share. Still haven't seen it.
 
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.


Our view.

But for the Left, they believe the lie that they can produce Utopia....defined as equality of material wealth.


I like this explanation of the fallacy of socialism.

"What if everyone starts off with the same amount of money?


“…. by the end of the first year, some people will have more than others. Guaranteed. Some people, you see, will be careful with what they have. Others won’t. Some people will gamble, others will save. Some will spend lavishly, others will be frugal.

Besides that, some people simply have more of the kind of wealth that can’t be redistributed. Intelligence; education; ambition. Drive, as opposed to: aw, we’re gonna get what we’re gonna get anyway, so let’s just stay on the couch and watch TV. Some people will put a little giddy-up in their get-alongs, and will find ways to improve their own lives.

Some of that will be “unfair,” because some people have more and better resources to tap. Intelligence; talent; family. Even accounting for such differences, though: some people will turn what they have into more, while others will not. Therefore, by the end of the very first year (not to mention the first five or ten) “haves” and “have-nots” will appear.

I know what you’re thinking. Crap. I thought we had it this time. Fairness! And this return to economic inequity will happen, I daresay, even under the strictest Communist policies.

I’ll come back to that.

After ten, twenty, thirty years, those discrepancies will widen. A middle class will form. An upper economic class, and a lower economic class. These classes will not be dead ends: people will be able to move from one to another and back again. But they’ll reappear, despite the original, radical redistribution of wealth.

So: let’s take this exercise further. Rather than a one-time redistribution of wealth, let’s redistribute every year. Every April 23 – Michael Moore’s birthday – all wealth is redistributed. All wages set by Central Command. Everyone is as equal as it’s possible to make them. Even individual advantages are nullified.

Not really, but we’ll come back to that, too.

Obviously, that system does away with any incentive to create. It removes any incentive to save; to be frugal; to work hard. Because no matter what you do, what you get is predetermined.

And yet, by April 22 of the following year, some people will still have more than others. And they’ll keep it.

How can that be? Simple. Even state-enforced economic “equality” did not – cannot – make everyone “equal.” It can only change the attributes that are most important to getting ahead.

Sucking up to your superiors becomes more important than working hard. Figuring out which bureaucrats can do the most for you, and ingratiating yourself to them.

Using the power of government to get you ahead, instead of creating, making, building, selling. Improving technical or academic skills? What for? Improving political skills. That’s what makes a difference.

You may recognize a little of our current system there. More and more, becoming a “have” in our society requires entering the bureaucracy, or getting the bureaucracy on your side.

Even the hard working entrepreneurs and innovators among us increasingly need the bureaucracy’s help. Vast mazes of regulations give bureaucracies vast power over both you and your competitors. Government can make or break an industry. Make or break a company. It can increase the cost of entry beyond plausibility, or it can make that cost go away.

In the free market, wealth comes from work. The closer we move toward socialism, the more wealth comes from power. That’s the difference. The similarity: wealth still exists in relatively few hands.”
What if we just gave everybody the same amount of wealth? | John Hawkins' Right Wing News
PC very well organized. The piece you missed is that no new technologies would have been created, no medical finds, people would start to die because pharmaceutical companies would fold. No Police forces, no fire houses, no home ownerships, no transportation, no coal, no gas, no electric. It would actually be mass chaos. And still, per your nicely laid out explanation, at the end of the exercise, people wouldn't have equal shares. Now if this is truly what the left want, then this is what the left would eventually get. I challenge anyone to debate.
 
Last edited:
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.
BTW, the left hate black people, this is all orchestrated to keep them submissive. And they follow along. It makes me fking sick the blacks bow to these fks. The left are and have always been the most evil people on the planet since history tracked them.
 
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.


I thought I gave away the solution early on.


It is the innumerable voluntary transactions known as the free market.


The constrained view is that no human beings, nor any conglomeration of same, are omnipotent, nor omniscient, nor omnibenevolent. We are even incapable of knowing the true nature of the problems we face. This may be called the Tragic View. The values of one generation are seen later as absurd: slavery, phenology, lobotomy, women as property, etc.

The answer is the free market. It is not perfect; it is simply better than state control. It is the one that has to respond quickly and effectively to dissatisfaction and to demand.In the free market, if a product or service does not please, it is discontinued. Compare that to government persistence and expansion of programs that proven to have failed decades ago: farm subsidies, aid to Africa, busing, etc.
oh don't get me wrong, I appreciate what you provided. But you aren't the one spewing the comment that the rich don't pay their 'fair' share. When they actually pay most of what is collected. I have been asking since I got in here for one of these leftists pukes to present the definition of 'fair' share. Still haven't seen it.



No definition of "fair share."

No definition of 'wealthy.'

No statement of how much of one's earnings the government is entitled to.

"Liberal,' it appears, means 'ignorant.'
 
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.


I thought I gave away the solution early on.


It is the innumerable voluntary transactions known as the free market.


The constrained view is that no human beings, nor any conglomeration of same, are omnipotent, nor omniscient, nor omnibenevolent. We are even incapable of knowing the true nature of the problems we face. This may be called the Tragic View. The values of one generation are seen later as absurd: slavery, phenology, lobotomy, women as property, etc.

The answer is the free market. It is not perfect; it is simply better than state control. It is the one that has to respond quickly and effectively to dissatisfaction and to demand.In the free market, if a product or service does not please, it is discontinued. Compare that to government persistence and expansion of programs that proven to have failed decades ago: farm subsidies, aid to Africa, busing, etc.
oh don't get me wrong, I appreciate what you provided. But you aren't the one spewing the comment that the rich don't pay their 'fair' share. When they actually pay most of what is collected. I have been asking since I got in here for one of these leftists pukes to present the definition of 'fair' share. Still haven't seen it.



No definition of "fair share."

No definition of 'wealthy.'

No statement of how much of one's earnings the government is entitled to.

"Liberal,' it appears, means 'ignorant.'
I agree. And they are quite proud of that as well.
 

Forum List

Back
Top