It ain't no use, we're headed for disaster
Our minds say 'no,' but our hearts are talking faster
--Donnie Iris
A favorite word of the Left is fairness. People need to pay their fair share. People need a fair shot. Naturally, in all such rhetorical contexts, fairness implies gains for Leftist interests.
It should come as no surprise that hearing the word fairness drives reflexive reactions in some folks to protect their wallets.
To justify governmental policies driven by fairness arguments, people on the Left have several questions to answer, including:
a) How do you define fairness?
b) Are there other definitions of fairness?
c) Why should your definition of fairness be accepted over others?
d) How do you justify the use of force to impose your definition of fairness on others?
Framing answers in the context of the Constitution would also be insightful.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
If fair equates to 'free of bias', paying one's fair share should be assessed at the same nominal amount (not percentage amount) for everyone.
The opponents of the above view surmise that the formula suggested would not create enough resources to spend. Therefore, they redefine the word fair.
Another approach is to make 'paying your fair share' optional.
If individuals find value in services provided, they are free to contribute.
If individuals do not find value in services provided, they are free to allocate their resources in the way they deem most appropriate.
Fair = free of bias
Americans gave a total of nearly $347 billion to charity in 2011, a 7.5 percent increase over 2010, according to a report released Tuesday by Atlas of Giving.
The group, which measures and forecasts charitable giving in the United States, said giving expanded at a faster rate than overall economic growth for the year.
This exemplifies individuals freely allocating capital toward projects they deem beneficial.
Is there tax reduction on Fairness?
Market Questionnaire
Post a Comment