rhetorical question time: Are fairness and freedom in opposition?

[Baruch Menachem]

A quote from Milton Friedman

The society that puts equality before freedom will end up with neither. The society that puts freedom before equality will end up with a great measure of both

It is noting that the states with the lowest levels of economic and political freedom are also the sates with the lowest levels of fairness as well, despite what they often claim.

After years of control by Democrats pushing fairness in California (and Oregon) the result has been ever lower levels of both fairness and freedom.

In my opinion, freedom would be a good thing even if it did not bring about higher levels of fairness, which it does. Fairness is not a good enough goal to sacrifice freedom for. Especially given that 'fairness' is so very subjective.

 

[martybegan]

A quote from Milton Friedman

The society that puts equality before freedom will end up with neither. The society that puts freedom before equality will end up with a great measure of both

It is noting that the states with the lowest levels of economic and political freedom are also the sates with the lowest levels of fairness as well, despite what they often claim.

After years of control by Democrats pushing fairness in California (and Oregon) the result has been ever lower levels of both fairness and freedom.

In my opinion, freedom would be a good thing even if it did not bring about higher levels of fairness, which it does. Fairness is not a good enough goal to sacrifice freedom for. Especially given that 'fairness' is so very subjective.

Freedom is only affected by "fairness" requires another party to give up some of thier freedom in the balancing act.

For example, Women's sufferage is a concept of fairness, but did it reduce anyone else freedom? I say no, the only thing it did was to dilute a man's voting power, which had not immidiate impact on his freedom. The later female support for prohibition enactment brought about by women's sufferage is a seperate issue.

On the other coin, lets look at affermative action when it involves quotas. For 100 spots you have to desginate 10 to a minority applicant, with all slots based on a test score. so the top 100 overall make it in, but at least 10 have to be black. So 2-3 non black applicants that would have made a position now did not, even though thier scores are higher. to some this is "fair", however the freedom the rejected applicants had to be considered based on thier merit has been reduced directly.

 

[McDowell's]

A quote from Milton Friedman

The society that puts equality before freedom will end up with neither. The society that puts freedom before equality will end up with a great measure of both

It is noting that the states with the lowest levels of economic and political freedom are also the sates with the lowest levels of fairness as well, despite what they often claim.

After years of control by Democrats pushing fairness in California (and Oregon) the result has been ever lower levels of both fairness and freedom.

In my opinion, freedom would be a good thing even if it did not bring about higher levels of fairness, which it does. Fairness is not a good enough goal to sacrifice freedom for. Especially given that 'fairness' is so very subjective.

Freedom is only affected by "fairness" requires another party to give up some of thier freedom in the balancing act.

For example, Women's sufferage is a concept of fairness, but did it reduce anyone else freedom? I say no, the only thing it did was to dilute a man's voting power, which had not immidiate impact on his freedom. The later female support for prohibition enactment brought about by women's sufferage is a seperate issue.

On the other coin, lets look at affermative action when it involves quotas. For 100 spots you have to desginate 10 to a minority applicant, with all slots based on a test score. so the top 100 overall make it in, but at least 10 have to be black. So 2-3 non black applicants that would have made a position now did not, even though thier scores are higher. to some this is "fair", however the freedom the rejected applicants had to be considered based on thier merit has been reduced directly.

Wouldn't women's suffrage be a concept of freedom which resulted in greater fairness? Women's suffrage wasn't right because it made society more fair or equal. It was right because women should have the inherent ability or freedom to participate in the political process, to have a say in their own lives.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

I am getting responses the seem to confuse the point. If we argue the point of woman's suffrage on this point, it is a case of greater freedom and greater fairness hand in hand. Neither is opposed to the other.

I was thinking more in terms of progressive taxes to make people's incomes more fair. It seems not to have worked at all.