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

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Oct 6, 2008
124,897
60,268
2,300
Brooklyn, NY
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….
 
With a $23T Debt and rising, entitlements going bankrupt, and a $1T annual Budget Deficit, taxes need to be raised on the top rate, and a VAT (Fed sales tax 0f ~3%) needs to be added. If we continue on this irresponsible path it will be too late and the interest on the Debt will turn the US into Greece or Venezuela.

upload_2020-1-14_8-5-23.png
 
Last edited:
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….

Does this also apply to "fair trade" which we hear so much about to justify the trade war?
 
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?
 
But...but....our President is always whining he is not treated fair
 
Does this also apply to "fair trade" which we hear so much about to justify the trade war?

Yeah it would, "fair" is relative so what might be "fair" to one party might be seen as wholly "unfair" to another party.

Trump is using the word in this case to justify renegotiating the terms of trade, it's up to him to make the case that the existing terms of trade are "unfair", so far it would appear that he's achieved a moderate amount of success in making that case given the concessions that the Chinese seem willing to make.

Personally though I think the Administrations approach has been clumsy, he could have gotten a better deal 3 years ago or he could have built a coalition of trading partners to go at the Chinese as a group, instead he made poorly timed demands that the Chinese would never agree to and did it unilaterally.
 
Does this also apply to "fair trade" which we hear so much about to justify the trade war?

Yeah it would, "fair" is relative so what might be "fair" to one party might be seen as wholly "unfair" to another party.

Trump is using the word in this case to justify renegotiating the terms of trade, it's up to him to make the case that the existing terms of trade are "unfair", so far it would appear that he's achieved a moderate amount of success in making that case given the concessions that the Chinese seem willing to make.

Personally though I think the Administrations approach has been clumsy, he could have gotten a better deal 3 years ago or he could have built a coalition of trading partners to go at the Chinese as a group, instead he made poorly timed demands that the Chinese would never agree to and did it unilaterally.

So, you agree Trump's use of the word is an all-purpose statement of moral superiority—superiority tinged, paradoxically, with victimhood?
 
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.
 
Does this also apply to "fair trade" which we hear so much about to justify the trade war?

Yeah it would, "fair" is relative so what might be "fair" to one party might be seen as wholly "unfair" to another party.

Trump is using the word in this case to justify renegotiating the terms of trade, it's up to him to make the case that the existing terms of trade are "unfair", so far it would appear that he's achieved a moderate amount of success in making that case given the concessions that the Chinese seem willing to make.

Personally though I think the Administrations approach has been clumsy, he could have gotten a better deal 3 years ago or he could have built a coalition of trading partners to go at the Chinese as a group, instead he made poorly timed demands that the Chinese would never agree to and did it unilaterally.

So, you agree Trump's use of the word is an all-purpose statement of moral superiority—superiority tinged, paradoxically, with victimhood?

Of course, after all Donny crying UNFAIR! has been one of his trademarks since he threw a public hissy fit over not immediately getting NYC tax abatement on the Commodore renovation project (which he eventually got, thanks to his old man), according to Trump he's been a professional victim of "unfairness" his entire adult life so he's really good at acting the role (most progressives are).

That being said, he does have a POINT with respect to trade with the Chinese if one takes into account chronic Chinese abuse of the standing terms of trade and International norms, which is why he's been (partially) successful in making the case that the status quo is UNFAIR to the United States.
 
Talk is cheap…how about that cake?

How to determine who gets more????

3. The only folks who toss around the word ‘fair’ as an explanation for public policy are Leftists: Liberals, Democrats, Progressives….government school grads. And although they are not virtuous, the term is their virtue-signaling.

“I want fairness” generally means “Look at me—I’m a nice person.” Demanding fairness lets you tell the world how decent you are without your actually having to contribute a penny. It’s a kind of vanity: “Mirror, Mirror, on the wall, who’s the fairest of them all?”

Let’s get real. The only just way to distribute the cake is to see how much people are prepared to pay for their slice.” Op. Cit.




As with that cake…put your money where you put your dinner: How much is the cake worth to you?

And the determination of this, no matter what the liars…er, Liberals…claim….is the free market, competition.




"The devil, as usual, is in the details. The unspoken and unrecognized assumption is that there exists some mechanism that can distribute goods and services. The only such mechanism is, and must be, the totalitarian state. To believe this, one must accept that there exists some equation by which the state can fairly and honestly control human exchange.

Here we go: increasing taxes to increase programs to increase happiness to allow equality…all of which ends up in dictatorship."
David Mamet
 
Last edited:
Whenever you hear libs trotting out fair/common sense/value added/equality.....run from it because there is nothing fair, no value, no equality, no common sense, about it all.
 
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?



"trade with China ... it's a perfect example of the free market"



Do your attendants know that you've chewed threw the restraints again????
 
Last edited:
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?



"trade with China ... it's a perfect example of the free market?



Do your attendants know that you've chewed threw the restraints again????

I'll note you did nothing to dispute my point outside of some stupid failed attempt at an insult.

That's what is done when you can't address the point.
 
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.


The Left’s concept of materialism broadens into the overarching desire to see every individual materially equal. The Left is less interested in creating wealth than in distributing it, and has been far more interested in fighting material inequality than tyranny, which is why Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, Castro, etc., tend to have the support of Leftists around the world.

End social and economic inequality and one will have Utopia! Sadly, attempts toward creation of utopia in this world lead to dystopia. Which leads to this comparison: conservatives marvel at how good America is, Leftists want to ‘transform’ it. Prager, ”Still The Best Hope”
 
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….

snowflakecommiesjw-3.jpg
 
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?



"trade with China ... it's a perfect example of the free market?



Do your attendants know that you've chewed threw the restraints again????

I'll note you did nothing to dispute my point outside of some stupid failed attempt at an insult.

That's what is done when you can't address the point.



Sure I did.....I recognized you as an imbecile.
 
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….

View attachment 300161



Government schooling writ large.
 
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?



"trade with China ... it's a perfect example of the free market?



Do your attendants know that you've chewed threw the restraints again????

I'll note you did nothing to dispute my point outside of some stupid failed attempt at an insult.

That's what is done when you can't address the point.



Sure I did.....I recognized you as an imbecile.

So we will agree you have no rebuttal.
 

Forum List

Back
Top