Fairness in a mixed economy

[thenelli01]

The condition to which you are born in is a metaphysical fact and outside the realm of morality.

 

How does this apply in a mixed economy? For example: the inner city man who was kept in the poverty by the minimum wage laws, which made it impossible to get a job as a teen because no one would hire him. As a result, he didn't learn skills at a young age and therefore, didn't rise as he would have if the minimum wage laws did not exist. He had a child and the child was also born in poverty. This is opposed to the wealthy man who kept his wealth through government subsidies and laws, which he believed in and advocated for. He had a child and the child was born into wealth.

 

What is your opinion on this? Is it fair for the child? If there can be identified direct injustices done to the parents that lowers the standard of the living of the child than would have other been, can we say that it is unfair?

Edited December 12, 2013 by thenelli01

[StrictlyLogical]

"Fairness" has not been defined.  If Objectivism has a meaning for fairness I would say it is grounded in justice and non-interference in respect of individuals.   

 

If your question is whether interference caused by the Government in a mixed economy is "unjust" and represents an interference causing harm, I would say "yes", to that extent the Government is "unfair".  BUT fairness cannot be judged my way of "equality of results", that is the philosophy of Egalitarianism which is immoral.  

[aleph_1]

In the sense that the rules are fixed in favor of the crony-capitalists and their kin, the system that presently exists in most mixed economies is not fair. Those on the left observe the unfairness and rather than remove the cause, instead call for more governmental interference to address the unfairness they see as inherent in their system. My question is, if we are to accept that the present system will continue to exist into the distant future, does this not imply that we should seek governmental redress through governmental handouts due to the unfairness rained down upon us by that same system? While hating the crony-capitalist state, does acceptance of its existence imply that we seek its expansion?

[thenelli01]

"Fairness" has not been defined.  If Objectivism has a meaning for fairness I would say it is grounded in justice and non-interference in respect of individuals.   

 

If your question is whether interference caused by the Government in a mixed economy is "unjust" and represents an interference causing harm, I would say "yes", to that extent the Government is "unfair".  BUT fairness cannot be judged my way of "equality of results", that is the philosophy of Egalitarianism which is immoral.  

 

I wasn't meaning fair to mean "equality of results". 

 

I agree that fairness is grounded in justice. I recommend reading this article, which differentiates the two: http://objectivismforintellectuals.wordpress.com/2012/07/18/206/

 

Fairness is accurately measuring a certain attribute(s) in question. When government policies interfere in the free market, the amount of wealth owned by a person (and family) can be unfair because they use force to make man unable to (or able to) acquire wealth he wouldn't have had before. If a man's wealth is less than it would have been because of unfair government policies such as minimum wage laws (like in the example in the OP), then his resulting economic situation is unjust.

 

Here is an example that was given in the article:

 

Case 2: One child is born into a wealthy family, while another is born into a poor family. The child of the wealthy family gets all the benefits of a good school, good parenting, good dental care, etc. The child of the poor family drops out of school to work, has somewhat neglectful parents, doesn’t have access to the same level of health care, etc. Is this situation fair or unfair? Again, it is neither. The child of the wealthy family does not have the benefits of wealth at the expense of the child of the poor family. Life is not a race for pleasures, education, jobs, or opportunities. Wealth is desirable. It is nice to be born into a wealthy family. But wealth, when earned, is created, and one family’s wealth does not cause another’s poverty (so long as it isn’t stolen.)

Is this situation just or unjust? As far as the child is concerned, the simple fact of being born—of being brought into existence—can never be either just or unjust to him. Being brought into existence is neither reward, nor punishment; there was no living entity there to be rewarded or punished. In principle, one can morally judge the decision of the parent(s) to have the child on the basis of the effect on the parents’ lives. Once the child is born, it is possible for the parents to be just or unjust to the child. But the mere fact of the level of the family’s wealth can be considered neither a punishment nor a reward for the child.

The justice of the above situation, with regard to wealth, applies to the parents. It is whether or not the wealth of the parents was freely earned, (i.e. earned by the production of objective values, which were then traded by mutual, voluntary consent) and whether or not wealth was stolen from the parents. If all wealth was freely earned, and none was stolen, then the situation is fully just. The benefits that the child of the wealthy family gets are the result of the parents using their justly earned wealth (reward) to promote their own values—specifically, their child’s well-being.

I'm speaking of situations where the child of the wealthy family DOES have the benefits of the wealth at the expense of the child of the poor family.

[StrictlyLogical]

Fairness presupposes a "distribution" or "treatment", this presupposes an actor or agent (a volitional entity) doing the "distribution" or "treatment".  The universe, reality, or situations as such cannot be fair or unfair, they simply are. 

 

So, the question regarding being fair requires definition of an actor, agent, or party who is to be measured as regard to how fair they are in respect of "distribution" or "treatment" of others.

 

I am not sure I can identify which volitional entity we are judging as fair or unfair in the above contexts/examples.

[thenelli01]

Fairness presupposes a "distribution" or "treatment", this presupposes an actor or agent (a volitional entity) doing the "distribution" or "treatment".  The universe, reality, or situations as such cannot be fair or unfair, they simply are. 

 

So, the question regarding being fair requires definition of an actor, agent, or party who is to be measured as regard to how fair they are in respect of "distribution" or "treatment" of others.

 

I am not sure I can identify which volitional entity we are judging as fair or unfair in the above contexts/examples.

 

I am referring to examples where the situation was caused by unfair government policies. If a situation was caused by an agent (the government) through unfair means, then the situation is unfair. Can we properly apply this and say it is unfair that children are unable to enjoy the wealth their family would have had (or does have) if it were not for such polices? Or it is unfair that children of parents who believe and advocate for subsidies are able to enjoy the wealth that their family wouldn't have had if it were not for such policies?

 

Or is this getting close to the idea of original sin?

 

Edited December 12, 2013 by thenelli01

[thenelli01]

Would this be like scorning whites for a "white privilege" instead of going after the specific people who are acting as racists? Instead of attacking the specific perpetrators (i.e. government and the people that support the policy), you blame the child who is benefitting from said policies.

Edited December 13, 2013 by thenelli01

[Eiuol]

Fairness often means egalitarianism, but fairness can also refer to those who receive what they don't deserve. If you get promoted for a job, but are a bad employee, that's unfair. If a corporation receives subsidies for simply being an important industry, that's unfair. Of course existing in a mixed economy screws with wealth and who deserves what, but here, we're talking about unfairness, not merely someone having more. So, since people brought about an unfair aspect in society (laws, norms, etc), it's okay to say that this is absolutely unfair, and it sucks, thanks to a mixed economy. If the kid born into wealth doesn't acknowledge that the wealth is actually largely acquired through favoritism and injust practices, that can be something like privilege by not realizing unfairness exists.

Still, where you're born is outside of morality because there is no "deserving" before you're even born. The way I see it, people are born into different levels of money, places, time periods, technology, etc, this is just a fact of life. Genetics aren't unfair either, people are just different. If someone has more, strive for more! If someone has more because of the norms of society, condemn those norms.

[brianleepainter]

On the topic of "fairness" and condemning the norms of society in this mixed market economy, I'd like to give an example:

http://news.walmart.com/news-archive/2013/11/01/walmart-statement-on-snap-reductions

 

"“As Congress considers changes to the SNAP program, we encourage them to adopt reforms that do not impact those who need the program the most."-- Jack Sinclair, executive vice president of the food business for Walmart U.S. 

 

How does one seek justice from a business that actively supports Government intervention? If you were speaking about an LFC society with an audience, what would you say to Jack Sinclair?