Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (90633)	10/20/2008 1:07:21 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541648

Lane, re: "However you look at it, the majority effectively determines what is fair. But that is a result of power, not because fairness is either knowable or absolute." You continue to question the use of "fairness" as a policy metric. In fact, you assert that; "Perceptions of fairness will always vary and are mostly overhead, a drain on society as people tinker with the rules or simply fret about the fairness of the rules rather than doing something constructive." That's engineer-thinking on a philosophical question and, more importantly, it ignores the real world truth that virtually every decision made by those in charge of promoting the public good necessarily considers both efficiency and fairness. If you don't agree, try to think of a public policy decision that doesn't require some degree of "fairness" analysis? In fact, the very concept of our form of government is based on our American belief that being subjected to the rule of government without a voting say in the process is unfair. As I wrote earlier, it's critical that the rules of the game be fair because if they're unfair then the society will get sick as friction between those who feel they're out and those who feel they're in, crime, and even terrorism, result. And the fact that fairness requires that we consider intangibles, or that different people can have different views of fairness, doesn't diminish the need to use that metric, or our ability to do so. We have much in common when it comes to arriving at a consensus on what is fair and what is not. It amazes me that even little children have an innate sense of what is fair and what is not, and they seem to understand fairness even when they're whining that they didn't get what they wanted. If you don't believe me, take something from a small child for a reason that you know is unfair and contrast that to taking something from him for a reason that you know to be fair. I think you'll find that children understand the difference, even toddlers, and that their reaction will be much less outraged when the reason is "fair." So I think we ought to spend significant time discussing and deciding what is "fair" as well as what is efficient. When fairness leads us one direction and efficiency leads us another we need to make choices, but we should understand that we're making important choices and the reasoning should be articulated. Maybe that's why on many social issues I'm in the "liberal" fold. Ed

To: Lane3 who wrote (90633)	10/20/2008 4:09:30 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541648

Lane, you raised this issue twice so I've decided to address it. I asked: "If you have a small child and an adult taking turns at work or play can you imagine many scenarios where taking turns could be unfair?" You answered: "Your example is difficult to respond to succinctly because it mixes a shared contribution scenario with one of shared resources. I will try to approach it generally. In your example, the child might look at taking turns as unfair but that's 1) because it may have been presented to the child as a question of fairness (why else take turns?) and 2) because children, self-centered and immediate-gratification beasties that they are, tend to be preoccupied with fairness. But it's more aptly framed as a question of utility, IMO." Why is it a question of utility instead of fairness? Lets say that the work involves a cleaning out a ditch and each is assigned 100 yards of ditch to clean out. They can both do the work, it's just that the adult is much taller, stronger and able to do the work. But if you just want the job done and don't care about meeting a time line that will be delayed by the child's work, who cares who does it or how much effort it takes them? Sure, the child might say it doesn't seem fair but in your public policy fairness vacuum, that's not a consideration. On the other hand, if the child and the adult are both to benefit from the ditch it doesn't seem "fair" that the child would stand idly by and watch the adult toil in the ditch without filling in and helping out a little, even if it doesn't get the job done any quicker. In my public policy world, in marriages, in friendships and in civilized systems across the globe, we make decisions based on needs, abilities and in maximizing the public good and minimizing the public pain. The sum total of those decisions can be summed up as maximizing efficiency and fairness. To look at one without the other is senselessly narrow viewed. Ed