What Is Fair?

The idea that government can “make life fair” is intuitively appealing to people—at least until they think about it.

President Obama says he want to make society more fair. Advocates of big government believe fairness means taking from rich people and giving to others: poor people; or people who do things politicians approve of, like making “green” energy equipment (Solyndra); or old people (even rich ones) through Social Security and Medicare.

The idea that government can “make life fair” is intuitively appealing to people—at least until they think about it. I’ll try to help.

Obama says fairness requires higher taxes, but as The Wall Street Journal’s Stephen Moore asks, “Is it fair that the richest 10 percent of Americans shoulder a higher share of their country’s income-tax burden than do the richest 10 percent in every other industrialized nation, including socialist Sweden?”

Or as economist Art Laffer asked on my Fox Business show, is it fair that American corporations pay the highest corporate tax rate in the world?

Beyond taxes, again quoting Moore, “Is it fair that President Obama sends his two daughters to elite private schools that are safer, better-run and produce higher test scores than public schools in Washington, D.C.—but millions of other families across America are denied that free choice and forced to send their kids to rotten schools?”

No. Parents ought to be able to spend their education money at any school they choose.

Big-government politicians bemoan income inequality, but would equalizing incomes make life fair?

To many, it is intuitive that such inequality is necessarily unfair. If someone makes his income by looting the taxpayers—sure, that’s unfair. His gains are ill-gotten, and honest taxpayers are out hard-earned money. But there’s nothing unfair simply in making more money through productive work. People have a range of talents and ambitions. Some will serve consumers better than others and therefore make more money. Government should not worry about that.

It should spend its time abolishing political privileges so that people compete fairly—in the marketplace.

You want to know what’s unfair? Social Security. Progressives say Social Security is the best-working government program ever, but they are wrong. I explored this on my show recently with Charles Goyette, author of Red and Blue and Broke All Over.

“Think about Social Security in terms of what would happen if a private company came up with a deal like this,” Goyette said. “The president of the company says, we’ve got to sell some new policies tomorrow to pay you what you’re due when you cash in today. They’d lock these guys up.”

Goyette was referring to the fact that your payroll taxes are not invested. The money is spent right away, and the government counts on new money from current workers to pay retirees. The touted trust fund doesn’t exist.

“There’s no trust. There’s no fund. There’s no security. And the really bad thing—this is what’s really destructive—it has changed the propensity of the American people to save for themselves....We’re creating a multigenerational calamity. And it’s right at our doorstep.”

We’ve taught people to be dependent. But dependence robs us of our dignity and keeps poor people poor.

Few politicians will touch the issue because seniors vote. And so trouble is not far up the road.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Pro Gress||

    It might help if instead of talking about fairness, we talked about justice:

    Yes, yes! Social justice!

  • Suki||

    +1

  • Jeffersonian||

    Kathleen Sebelius is Diana Moon Glampers. Think about it.

  • rather||

    Never off topic
    "Sen. Fred Dyson testified that his strong respect for life prompted his effort to rewrite part of the state's patients' rights law. Senate Bill 172 would not restrict a patient's right to refuse treatment to prolong life. But in cases where the patient's or a spouse or other family member's demands for treatment conflicted with a doctor's judgment or ethical standards, cardio pulomonary resuscitation might be required."

  • AuH20||

    I would sue the ever loving shit out of a doctor who violated my DNR.

    Also, euthanasia should be legal.

  • ||

    I would sue the ever loving shit out of a doctor who violated my DNR.

    Also, euthanasia should be legal.

    I agree; euthanasia should be legal. That way, after you've won your lawsuit and your doctor's career is ruined, you can put him out of his misery.

  • rather||

    lol, I know of one who would love your idea

  • ||

    I despise Obama, for a wide variety of reasons, and also have scant patience for those who support the current structure of Public Education. Nevertheless, I have a problem with using the "If public schools are so goddamned good, why does (name of favorite hypocrite here) send their kids to expensive private schools" argument to the President. Sending the President's child to a public school would create a huge security problem for that school. As a public building, they would be hard tut to exclude reporters, too. It just makes SENSE to put the President's kid(s) in an exclusive Private School that already has measures in place to deal with those issues. If only for the sake of the children in the public schools those presidential kids would otherwise reduce to three ring circuses.

  • rather||

    Why, you almost sound like a normal human being; not libertarian right?

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: rather,

    Why, you almost sound like a normal human being; not libertarian right?


    In rather's neck of the woods, "normal" means ignorant fool.

  • rather||

    that's funny coming from someone who lives in Houston

  • ||

    Conservative believe that, at some time in the past, there was a perfect balance of Freedom and Government, and life was perfect. Progressives believe that at some time in the future, the power of the State will reach the proper level and life will be perfect. Libertarians believe that if the government was more or less abolished, common sense and the Market would provide for all, and life would be perfect.

    I'm a Crank.

  • UvalDuvalCuckoo||

    Freestyle much? I have yet to hear a Libertarian, prominent or crank, imply that abolishing govt (or scaling it back to 1776 levels) would result in 'common sense and the Market' providing for all. The argument usually goes "the market is far from perfect, but it's the best we've got" which Friedman schooled Donahue with. Could you cite an example of a prominent conservative, progressive and libertarian that believe what you're claiming - just one?

  • o3||

    interesting that a man, who doesnt know ur alive, controls ur emotions

  • HeroicMulatto||

    Sending the President's child to a public school would create a huge security problem for that school.

    The Carter administration was able to solve those problems.

  • Tonio||

    ^This. Amy Carter went to Dee effing Cee public schools. And you can be damn sure that that her presence raised the standards of that public school, to the benefit of the other students. So, despite his failings as a President, Carter stuck by his principles.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Make 'em homeschool, then.

    Then again, we should refuse to elect politicians with young children.

  • ||

    Was it? Or did the school Amy was sent to devolve into a huge clusterf*ck? Because what I've read on the subject makes me suspect the latter.

  • Ice Nine||

    Possibly so but irrelevant. Obama sends his kids to an exclusive private school for the very same reasons that rich people who aren't the President do.

  • ||

    I think you missed the point. Stossel wasn't suggesting that the President be forced to send his kids to public school, he was arguing for school choice; the right to have your money spent on the education you want your child to have.

    The private school Obama sends his kids to was open to everyone in DC through the voucher program that was in place prior to his presidency. There were plenty of students who were only able to attend the school because of the voucher program which allowed their tax dollars to be used on the education of their choice.

    Sure it make sense for the President to put his daughters in an exclusive privates school, but it makes NO sense whatsoever to tell the parents of other students that they can't send their own children there.

  • The Derider||

    Publicly funded education, whether in public schools, charters, or through voucher programs, necessitates taxation and is therefore unfair.

    That's stossel's "argument", in a nutshell.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    And?

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: C.S.P. Schofield,

    Sending the President's child to a public school would create a huge security problem for that school.


    As opposed to a private school? I don't see where the difference lies. Both private AND public schools are built like fortresses because of regulations and zoning laws, so I don't see why it would matter.

    As a public building, they would be hard tut to exclude reporters, too.


    You just be joking. You can't get inside even as a PARENT without permission, let alone as a journalist.

  • ||

    Parents do not have anywhere near the clout that reporters do. A public school administrator will pull cr*p on parents that he would never dare pull on a reporter.

    Maybe it's because I've lived in Washington D.C., so I know how the private schools work there. They are laid out so that they can defend the children of Oil Sheiks and the like from kidnapping or assault. Putting the President's kid in one of them makes little difference.

  • ||

    So did Obama send his girls to public school before he ran for office, back when he was a community organizer?

  • Douglas Fletcher||

    Well if the Obama's sent their kids to a regular school the girls might miss out on all that training on how to be little upper class queenies that they're getting now.

    Your point is bullshit. If they can let Biden run down the middle of a goddamn boulevard in a crime ridden city the Secret Service can well enough take care of security in whatever school it has to.

  • UvalDuvalCuckoo||

    Why would it create a problem for a public school that it didn't create for a private school? I guess this is limited to elementary and high school? IIRC, the bush twins went to a private and public college and each school managed to survive. I think Chelsea and Ken Starr's daughter both went to college at the same time and Stanford survived. I'm pretty sure if you asked the average parent, they'd be just fine with the circus created by having the Obama daughters at their kid's school compared to what they have now. Do you disagree?

  • Tony||

    We’ve taught people to be dependent.

    No, we've provided a guaranteed income to people who are unable to work because of age or infirmity. In magical libertarian lala land somehow not only would people with increasing lifespans in the 20th century have been able to work in old age, there would have been enough jobs for them. The disabled are just fucked by natural selection, I guess. Life isn't fair, right?

    So why would you bitch about paying taxes? Those are at least in theory justifiable. Even if they're not, suck it up, life isn't fair.

  • AuH20||

    Which in no way incentives people to fake age or infirmity!

  • we||

    "fake age"

    I love it.

    Y'know, sometimes people call 911 to report crimes that have not actually happened.

    Ergo ... abolish 911! QED

  • Fluffy||

    Because that's not an instance of life being unfair. That's an instance of you, along with an identifiable group of people, being unfair.

    That's one more observation about the left that Rand made that turned out to be absolutely true: they see no difference between harms they want to impose and facts of reality imposed by the universe.

    You being born ugly, and me taking a rusty scalpel to your face to MAKE you ugly, are two entirely different varieties of "unfair", Tony.

  • Tony||

    The only problem I see here is that you need to read some real philosophers and political scientists. Ayn Rand is and always will be neither, but instead the dead founder of an inexplicably robust cult.

    But fine whatever. Taxes are justified regardless, unless you're an anarchist, in which case the conversation is stopped and you have to go on living (in your cabin/cave) unfairly paying taxes and unfairly sucking up societies benefits.

  • Brian||

    Tony said Taxes are justified regardless.

    This implies that poll taxes justified regardless. Is this correct?

  • HeroicMulatto||

    Despite what you might think, Ayn Rand is neither the Alpha nor the Omega of Liberty and liberty-minded thought.

    I'd provided you with a list of those real philosophers, but you've done nothing to convince me that it wouldn't be throwing pearls before swine.

  • HeroicMulatto||

    *provide

  • k2000k||

    Ayn Ryand is a guppie in a sea of big fish when it comes to libertarian thought. Ryan had no influence on me whatsoever.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Fucking great. Tony's back.

    Why can't he just STAY gone?

  • Copernicus||

    You talking about Paul Ryan? Paul Rand? Rand Paul? Randy Ayn? Your spelling confuses me.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tiny,

    Taxes are justified regardless, unless you're an anarchist


    A meaningless tautology, an Ad Hominem and Non Sequitur all in the same sentence from the Great Logician himself!

    Tiny is Tiny because he is, unless you're a dog!

  • Fluffy||

    In other words, you are completely backing away from your insipid statement that taxes are just another example of "life" not being fair, exactly like being born with a disability.

    Great, we're done here.

  • Tony||

    I'm questioning the justification for all manner of social ills based on the claim that life isn't fair, while being the biggest whiners in the world about normal everyday responsibilities.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    You equality-of-outcomers think life must be MADE fair, artificially.

    Oh, no! Kids might fall and scrape their knees - we need to coat the entire planet in Nerf material and remove and destroy all sharp objects! Government must cover EVERY life-risk contingency!

    Fuckin' griefers. How do they work?

  • Brian||

    I'm accepting the justification for all manner of social ills based on the claim that life isn't fair, while being the biggest prick in the world about complaints of unfairness.

  • Matt Tanous||

    "Taxes are justified regardless, unless you're an anarchist"

    No, they still aren't. Some forms of taxation, such as on incomes, are theft. Always.

    Police can be funded by charging for services. Say, you don't pay, and they don't provide 911 service. Fire insurance or similar monthly payments could easily fund the fire departments. National parks could be funded by entrance fees. Courts already have court fees. Import-export fees for government ports. Highway tolls. Use fees for "public" property. I could go on forever. Defense funded by voluntary means would stop a lot of these pointless wars. The fact that then allowing competition would essentially create anarcho-capitalism and bring down the State is beside the point.

  • The Derider||

    Will kids pay for their own educations, too?

  • Emperor Wears No Clothes||

    Their parents ought to.
    I didn't breed 'em so why should I pay for teach 'em?

  • Emperor Wears No Clothes||

    /to teach

  • Brian||

    Tony, are you a real person, or a sock puppet?

  • Tonio||

    Nobody knows, Brian. With a few notable exceptions (RC), nobody uses his full, real name here.

    The consensus among long-time regulars is that the "Tony" posts are the work of one or more sock puppeteers. Also, Shrike.

  • Brian||

    No, we've provided a guaranteed income to people who are unable to work because of age or infirmity.

    Tony,
    This implies that this income stream is predicated on a person being unable to work because of age or infirmity. In the case of age, such a predication is not even attempted. In the case of infirmity, it is attempted, but often under fraudulent conditions.

    Can you explain why we should tax workers to "provide a guaranteed income" to rich retired people?

  • Matrix||

    I've met plenty of people who were capable of getting some type of job and being productive members of society, but went on disability. Sure, they were somewhat disabled, but there were jobs they could do. There were plenty of others that actually were pretty much unable to do anything, and the red tape they had to get through to get on disability was a real nightmare.

  • Matrix||

    Oh, and when I was training with soldiers in BOLC, the instructors were telling the butterbars how to game the system. Basically write down every stubbed toe or every accident while on duty... document everything so they could get medical disability pay (and points for government jobs). sure, they would be perfectly healthy, but all that documented shit would make them appear disabled. Just gaming the system to fuck over taxpayers.

  • Matt Tanous||

    They do the same thing with retired officers. Tell them to get checked for every possible condition to get more money. Doesn't matter if you never had a problem with sleep apnea. Get the test anyway so if you have it (and it is not an issue) you still get extra.

  • Mark||

    There's something wrong with a social safety net that requires the assistance of legal counsel to access, no?

    www.binderandbinder.com

  • Concerned Citizen||

    A friend of mine is an attorney who helps people get their disability approved. He makes approx. 40k per month.

  • Jeffersonian||

    I'm going out on a limb here, but I'm betting he donates to the campaigns of political candidates.

  • Isaac Bartram||

    Brian, Tony also believs the old canard that we need SS to get the old folks out of those jobs so that young'ns can take them.

    So "fairness" isn't just taking money from the wages of young workers it's taking jobs away from old people as well.

    Tony's perfect world is just a world of taking and violence and he wonders why some of us don't find that ideal.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tiny,

    No, we've provided a guaranteed income to people who are unable to work because of age or infirmity.


    "Guaranteed" to mean until Santa Claus runs out of other people's money, of course.

    So why would you bitch about paying taxes?


    Because stealing is still immoral, Tiny, regardless of what the thief decides to call it: "Taxes," "Tariffs," "Fees."

    Those are at least in theory justifiable.


    In theory, you have a brain... in reality...

  • NotSure||

    You have also guaranteed income to people who choose not to work. I am not sure if you are saying life is fair or not fair, which is it ?

  • Douglas Fletcher||

    Life isn't fair, and that's why it's just so sad that you're such a fool, and no one can do anything about it.

  • ||

    You dumb fuck. I was born with one hand and began working before I turned sixteen (forty six years and counting). I work as a mechanic and put three kids thru the UC system.

    Tony if you want to define needy/disabled then you support them. I'm not fucked by being one handed I'm fucked by fools like you who believe in being charitable with what I've earned. Fair my ass!

  • AuH20||

    This is why I enjoy the lottery: It is an awesome mass social experiment showing that the only difference between the poor and the rich is not simply monetary.

    Another example of this is professional sports- how many guys go broke only a few years after raking in millions?

    The simple fact of the matter is that rich people act differently than poor people.

  • Fluffy||

    You know one thing that continually annoys me about these "green manufacturers"?

    The pictures of their facilities.

    If you're the competitive underdog here, if you're the up-and-coming scrappy industry taking on entrenched power, if you need subsidies to SURVIVE - why in the flippity fuckety fuck do all your facilities look like background shots from The Truman Show?

    Shouldn't you be in the ugliest, grimiest, cheapest buildings imaginable?

    Why are you spending subsidy dollars on being pretty when you're building a commodity product?

  • ||

    Use the money to make your operation look sexy, then seek more money.

  • Britt||

    Because Solyandra isn't really selling solar panels. They're a Potemkin village. The real value is making the Administration look good. Solar panels are a by product of their real product: propaganda.

    So the factory has to look like an iPod, with a day care center and vegan cafeteria options. Otherwise it's not good for photo ops.

  • Alan Vanneman||

    "The idea that government can “make life fair” is intuitively appealing to people—at least until they think about it."

    Then I guess American voters don't think much, because they keep voting for politicians who support Social Security, Medicare, & Medicaid, not to mention farm subsidies, student loans, disability payments,* etc. Oh, yeah, then there's the graduated income tax, welfare, food stamps, etc. etc., etc. Seems like a lot of people think that government can and does make life, if not "fair," then "more fair." Obviously, John thinks they oughtn't to think that way, but that's another conversation.

    *Especially for veterans. I mean, they volunteered, right?

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Alan Vanneman,

    Then I guess American voters don't think much


    Ding! Ding! Ding! And what do we have for this contestant today, Johnny?

  • NotSure||

    The same applies to voters in all countries. Voting is not about thinking, it is a popularity contest.

  • Matt Tanous||

    There is absolutely no difference between your election of Class President in 1st Grade and that of the US President.

  • ||

    Depens if your 1st Grade Class President has a Marine following him around carrying a "football".

  • Jeffersonian||

    The most successful con games are not those where the mark is completely fooled by a seemingly innocent shark, but those where the shark makes the mark think he's in on the con. This is the basic idea behind Medicare and SS.

  • HeroicMulatto||

    Shouldn't you be in the ugliest, grimiest, cheapest buildings imaginable?

    Why are you spending subsidy dollars on being pretty when you're building a commodity product?

    I'm not convinced that ugly = cheap or pretty = expensive.

    To name just one example, look at ancient architecture. You can cool a building much more 'Green-ly' (ugh, what a neologism) by having an atrium with an impluvium. I'd bet it would be cheaper in the long-run than central air-conditioning, and a hell of a lot more aesthetically pleasing.

  • Fluffy||

    Well, "used and vacant" should be cheaper than "brand-spanking new, with beautiful landscaping and our brand colors incorporated everywhere".

    If I start a factory here and now, today, it would be less capital-intensive for me to use a local vacant industrial building than build new from scratch in sunny California.

  • OSHA||

    If I start a factory here and now, today, it would be less capital-intensive for me to use a local vacant industrial building than build new from scratch in sunny California.

    You sure about that? *checks giant book of regulations*

  • anon||

    If I start a factory here and now, today, it would be less capital-intensive for me to use a local vacant industrial building than build new from scratch in sunny California.

    While I accept your general premise, this isn't necessarily true.

  • sarcasmic||

    Fair means the government protects your right to private property while also protecting your right to the property of other people.

    There is no contradiction there. None at all.

  • anon||

    Duh!

  • The Derider||

    You want the government to protect your right to private property for free?

    Who's looking for a handout now?

  • Concerned Citizen||

    The Constitution allows for some taxes. The income tax is just a huge extortion racket. Compensation for labor is not income. Look it up.

  • Tony||

    The income tax is specifically allowed for by your beloved constitution. Sorry.

  • Brother Grimm||

    It also banned beer for a while. Until they finnaly figured out that the government did not have the authority to do that. Same with the income tax.

  • Jeffersonian||

    That doesn't disprove or even rebut his characterization.

  • Mark||

    We’ve taught people to be dependent. But dependence robs us of our dignity and keeps poor people poor.

    Funny... The government locks up the drug dependent, presumably because dependency is bad. At the same time, it creates generation after generation of people dependent on the government for their very survival.

    Who's the biggest pusher on the block?

  • ||

    It’s even worse for Medicare. We’re talking tens of trillions in unfunded liabilities. Where’s that money going come from? Since seniors resist cuts, will politicians keep their promises by devaluing the currency?

    Actually I don't think that would work since the actual "promise" of Medicare is infinite access to infinite procedures at minimal beneficiary cost. If they devalue the currency 50% that unnecessary (or even essential) MRI or CT Scan will just cost twice as many new dollars. The Medicare unfunded liabilities are essentially infinite since the promised care is equally infinite in volume - unless the costs suddenly plummet and that can only happen with competition not with price controls that lead only to shortages.

    Once you have shortages suddenly the promise of unlimited access goes away. Medicare can only collapse under its own weight.

  • Jerryskids||

    What is fair?

    That's a good question. Whether or not X is fair depends on your definition of fairness. Libertarians think (or I think they think) that fairness is something the affected parties should determine between themselves. If you and I engage in mutually agreeable intercourse, it is fair by our definition. If it were not fair, one or the other of us would not have agreed to the intercourse.

    Is $3 a fair price for a loaf of bread? You are free to accept or reject or haggle over the offer of exchange. That's fair by my definition.

    What is your fair share of taxes? That's a different question - you don't deal with the IRS you deal with Wal-mart. Is it fair that Rather gets more tail than John? Yet again a different question. You don't deal with God the same way you deal with Wal-mart or the IRS.

  • Jerryskids||

    "What is the definition of fairness?" might be a better question. Whatever the affected parties agree to as a definition? If you and I engage in a mutually agreeable transaction, that is fair. Were it not fair, one or the other of us would not have agreed to the transaction.

    Is $3 for a loaf of bread at Wal-mart fair? You are free to accept or reject or haggle over the offer. That seems fair.

    What is your fair share of taxes? That is a different sort of question - you are not free to deal with the IRS the same way you deal with Wal-mart.

    Is it fair that Rather gets more tail than John? That too is a different question, you are not free to deal with God the same way you deal with either the IRS or Wal-mart.

    The problem is some people think both God's fairness and Wal-mart's fairness can and should be subject to the IRS' fairness.

  • Jerryskids||

    Goddamned Bell-South internet. Sorry about the double post. Unfortunately, my choice of internet providers is BS or nothing.

  • ||

    So, if life isn't fair, how can it be that one derives paying or receiving a fair share of anything? I'll pay Warren Buffett's share; let others in his bracket pay the same share as does his secretary. I'm a liberal who decries the fact that liberalism is too soft -- but wishes there were no direction such as the far right...

  • Concerned Citizen||

    You liberals have made a nice living selling your solutions to unfairness. No go fuck yourself.

  • Drave Robber||

    When someone uses a phrase like 'fair price', 'fair wages' or 'fair' whatever, my favorite reply is:

    Economics is a study of efficiency, not that of fairness.

  • ||

    I get paid much less than a Doctor or a Dentist.

    Is it fair? I think so. I did not put in the years of grueling education that they did and don't work the long hours that many of them do.

    Is it fair that they pay a higher tax rate than I do? No. Why should they be penalized for providing a service that others find more valuable? This applies to almost all persons who make more than me. I am not jealous of their income because I am not willing to make the effort they have made to earn it. And I don't think they have a "duty" to "contribute" more than I simply because they earn more.

  • ||

    But you're not thinking of the children!

    Oh, but won't someone think of the god dang children?

  • ||

    When the doctors pay to pass (as well as write) laws that require me to pay a small fortune to get permission to buy medicine, it's a scam. In a free(r) market, pharmacists would be allowed to prescribe. That would reduce costs (and the medical cartel's income)drastically.

  • shrike||

    All power to the Soviets

  • NRO||

    Is the Romney campaign like an Etch A Sketch?

  • ||

    Love the "Stop the Koch Brothers" ad.

  • ||

    Other fairness issues:

    Is it fair for government to subsidize some businesses but not others? Why solar and not nuclear, or why one solar plant and not another? What about the profits made by the owners of these businesses? Is it fair that they make more money because they got subsidies?

    Is it fair for government to provide "targeted" tax breaks, that only some businesses can qualify for?

    Is it fair for government to try to manipulate the economy so that some industries grow faster?

    Is it fair for government to pass regulations that penalize some industries or businesses because they are politically unpopular? Why should Walmart be subjected to special rules that are designed to target it? Why should biotechnology be subjected to restrictions that lack a scientific basis?

  • ||

    Yes. Because.

  • PacRim Jim||

    It's unfair that those politicians hold high office and I don't.
    Gimme your jobs.

  • ||

    Who promised you a rose garden? Miles of comment and now where near an outcome.

  • egoist||

    JS, I saw a good deal of your show last Sunday @ the folks (this same subject). It's unfair how your show is so much better than the others!

  • jguidry||

    If fairness is the true goal then we would have to abolish the idea of inheritance, both idealogical and material so that no child would have an advantage over another. I doubt Stossel is suggesting this.

  • ||

    re: What is fair?. That's a great question. The definition I've adopted and am eager to shares from an outstanding educator...a teacher of teachers.

    Fair IS NOT everyone getting the same thing. Fair IS everyone getting what they need. - Diana Browning Wright

  • Appalachian Australian||

    Define "need".

    For example, right now I think I need a Lamborghini.

  • Leif||

    "What Is Fair?"

    Not to go on all fours; that is fair.

  • JeffersonianHassenpheffer Inc.||

    "No trust, No fund, No Security." Only because it's been raided to pay for many "black ops'", not to mention it's Fiat Currency which is derived from fiction to begin with. To begin from Debt (less than nothing) is impossible under The Constitution. Let's start there and when we get that little problem under control and back to a secure monetary base maybe we won't need a Social Security system.

  • JeffersonianHassenpheffer Inc.||

    Also; There is no incentive to 'save' when the Dollar loses value faster than interest can keep pace with, and "the market" steals from the freshman just like any common Ponzi Scheme.

  • ||

    The left wants to level the players instead of the playing field. We are equal UNDER THE LAW, not in fact.

    Even if you agree (I do not) that children have no right to parent's wealth, what gives the government a right to it? To me, government seems more corrupt than business.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement