RoR: Forum

My sister, looking for schools in which to place my nephews, was shocked to see this quote on the wall of a Catholic school. She said her immediate reaction was to wonder where the "A is A" banner had been hung.

Post 1

Thursday, November 12, 2009 - 12:00pm

Thursday, November 12, 2009 - 5:37pm

I would be interested in the forum where this discussion occurred and what were the contents of the discussion. Why didn't you bother to tell us?

I don't want to get bogged down with minutia, but as a concrete example, what is fair about a brain surgeon having spent perhaps 22-25 years of his life educating himself to perform life-saving operations and having enormous responsibilities while a layabout garbage collector who drinks a six pack every night and has virtually no responsibilities except turning up on time getting paid the same?

Post 3

Friday, November 13, 2009 - 12:50pm

You'd think after almost a century of communism people would realize paying everyone the same wage does not lead to prosperity. In fact, the evidence for this is so overwhelming, it's strange that some people would actually continue to discuss it as if it isn't a settled issue.

Post 4

Friday, November 13, 2009 - 3:48pm

Depends on who's defining "fair." Pelosi thinks jailing people for not buying insurance is "fair." This quote doesn't disagree with her.
(Edited by Teresa Summerlee Isanhart on 11/13, 3:50pm)

Post 5

Saturday, November 14, 2009 - 12:27am

Then, equality is unfair.? The quotes significance has many connotations to different people. Yet it does set one to thinking.
Sam, The discussion I had was with a coworker. I work with people doing a job that makes ends meet et they have an education worth more than what there job calls for. As you mentioned, without involving minutuae we were concerend with how an individuals values or sense of life would have some prosper and some wither depending on their choices of how they invested there earnings. On the other end of the spectrum we had the subject of a flat rate income tax.
Suppose the Brain Surgeon had to do service as a garbage man to earn his tuition? If he had a patient with an occupation less prestigous than his own would said patient receive the same care? Why should he even accept a patient with less value than himself. It would damage his reputation if the procedure fell through.
Where is Ms Pelosi going to place all her war tattered veterans? I happen to work with a few of them. Some understand a strangle hold and some have not even heard of it. Ms Pelosi's political triangulation in the form of health care is a zenith/nadir/hiatus in an ongoing war on self indulgence. Ya wanna indulge ya gonna pay for it. Some will be more prepared to pay for it than others. But that is the norm. What is so new about someone attempting to sell you the rope they will hang you with? or for that matter forcing you to buy it with the proper rituals. Order will be rejected by chaos until order has been understood and accepted. How is your ego, Orderly or chaotic?
The disparity that I analyze is the data that is used to make visionary decisions is what politicians do. Say politicians have a data set to work with such as the Davis-Bacon wage limits. Do you know what happens when you get people to work and they have a ego bigger than the bid? Every one loses because of an ego trip. It does not take long for a bunch of disgruntled employees dummying down to suck the capital out of an establishment. So if the bosses demonstrate the same mentality why look for a strawman. I hope that garbage man can get his load in the truck I dont want my bag hanging out of my garbage pail. Now maybe if the new procedure works we can alter the brain stucture of that poor garbage man and have him git the buckit emptied. Wonder how he would work on the adopt a high way program.

Post 6

Saturday, November 14, 2009 - 8:09am

Bullshit. The problem with the quote is that it's intrinsic; eschewing any need for objective standards.

Post 7

Saturday, November 14, 2009 - 8:58am

The quote is short for "The definition of fair is not equal." I.e., "equal" is not the definition of "fair."

It is a denial of egalitarianism and relativism.

This is absolutely correct, and should appeal to Objectivists.

(Edited by Ted Keer on 11/14, 9:27am)

Post 8

Saturday, November 14, 2009 - 9:17am

Ahh, but the definition of 'fair' can be construed to mean 'to make equal', a la Pelosi for instance - and this would still be a 'true' statement...

Post 9

Saturday, November 14, 2009 - 12:27pm

A good discussion of fairness includes integrating it with it's sister-concept, justice. Justice is when equals get treated equally (and unequals unequally).

Treating a dollar the same as a penny -- e.g., giving someone a penny in place of the dollar you owe them -- would be wrong by being unjust (and unfair). Treating a healing doctor the same as a vicious murderer -- e.g., putting a doctor in jail for life; after he saved someone's life -- would be unjust (and unfair).

To treat unequals equally -- as Obama, Pelosi, and Reid would, for instance -- is also unjust (and, therefore, unfair).

Ed

Post 10

Saturday, November 14, 2009 - 12:50pm

See, that wasn't so hard.

Now, why would they say such a thing in a Catholic school?

Post 11

Sunday, November 15, 2009 - 8:16pm

A recent discussion about egalitarianism involved a scenario with a universal wage of 4 dollars an hour. We discussed whether every one would prosper. Yet the situation is both fair and equal. Where do the flaws lie in such a system?

The fundamental flaw in such a system is that it requires a top-down government bureaucracy enforcing a system that would destroy productivity and drag the brightest and smartest people down to the level of the barely functioning idiots.

And it STILL wouldn't be equal, because some people would be incapable of getting and holding work at a wage of 4 dollars an hour, unless the government ran the entire economy and paid them regardless of whether they actually showed up. And the people in charge of the system would find a way to funnel all sorts of goodies their way, despite officially drawing a paycheck of 4 dollars an hour, ala Congress exempting themselves from the health care scheme they are trying to inflict upon us peons, and awarding themselves top-notch care.

And it STILL wouldn't be fair, either, as discussed elsewhere in this thread, unless you used a very warped definition of "fair" that wasn't based on justice.

You'd wind up with a dictatorship that promised equality and fairness while delivering neither, and ruthlessly punishing anyone with the audacity to point out the lack of equality and fairness.

And, ummmm, everything else that went bad under Communism, and is still going bad in shitholes like North Korea and Cuba.
(Edited by Jim Henshaw on 11/15, 8:25pm)

Post 12

Monday, November 16, 2009 - 1:30pm

Vonnegut illustrated 'fair is not equal' very well with his lead-weighted ballerinas.

Where does the alternative 'fair is equal' ever end?

Two humans work the same job, getting paid the same/equal amount of money. But, for one of them, this is a struggle, and takes every ounce of his concentration and effort to do a barely acceptable job, while for the other, he can practically do it with one hand tied behind his back, fast asleep, and does outstanding work. Their efficient effort and output is not 'equal,' only their job titles.

Is it 'fair' that both get paid the same amount of money for their effort, or would some say that the worker who is straining with every fibre of his being should actually be paid more for the same job?

After all, the more capable worker is barely breaking a sweat. Shouldn't he be paid less, because he can, and shouldn't the struggling worker be paid more, because he can't?

In some people's perverted eyes, yes, because even equal is never equal enough...

Fortunately, this is totally moot. So far. Those who can, always will, including, avoid the clumsy fork aimed at them by those who can't. When we try to repeal this basic law of human nature, by outlawing voluntary assistance and free association, and attempt to replace it with forced subsidy and forced association, those who can, will.

As in, give forth with the middle finger, figuratively speaking. Unless, of course, you can convince them, politically, to concede their one and only finite mote of heat and light and time in this existence to the authority of some unseen and yet all seeing being, be it God or "S"ociety, that only the self-annointed can divine and speak for, trust them, there is a reason that such supernatural entities cannot speak directly to we naked sweaty apes, only through elites.

(Edited by Fred Bartlett on 11/16, 1:33pm)

Post 13

Monday, November 16, 2009 - 3:09pm

Fred,

Excellent post.

Ed

Post 14

Wednesday, November 18, 2009 - 5:24am

Wage discussions and fairness often pin the wage on a person rather than the job. When it comes to equality we're looking at the wrong thing here - we should not treat all people equally in all things, because that will quickly break down and it'll be obvious that there need to be some caveats on "treat everyone the same". For example, giving 5 year olds the vote is ridiculous, and there are laws forbidding sexual relations for the under 18/16/14 (regional variations may apply).

So obviously "equal" is not a blanket position covering everyone in every situation.

"Fair is not equal" is a raw, basic, and indeed rude way of explaining how things are and should be. It's not fair to combine the athletic discipline 100m dash in the Olympics for men and women, because no woman would ever win a medal. In this case, men are better than women at running over a distance of 100m, but it's a gross misrepresentation to then say that men are better than women.

Keeping that differentiation in mind, you can look at other areas of life and apply "non-equal fairness" to situations without the broad brush that coats everyone. Should a brain surgeon be paid the same as a garbage collector? No, obviously not. The job function determines the pay scale, not the ability of the person performing that role. Underqualified you're likely to lose your job, overqualified and you should think about getting a job more suited to your abilities especially if it's a better paying one. For example, a job where one person struggles yet another can do it in their sleep should pay the same regardless of the person's ABILITY to do the job - as long as the job gets done. The onus is on the employee to find their level and balance job satisfaction with pay, it's not necessarily for the employer to discriminate pay scales based on ability.

When it comes to a cohesive society, you cannot be fair to everyone, so you may as well be unfair to everyone for the greater good. "Enlightened self-interest" may be idealistic, or even altruistic, but the alternative is the "tragedy of the commons". Being selfish and deliberately ignorant will almost always end badly - short term gratification, long term pain. But this is getting away from the "Fair is not equal" sign.

We are not equal, nor were we created equal. We do however have certain universal rights granted to us so that we may prosper as a group.

Graham

Post 15

Saturday, February 20, 2010 - 7:06pm