Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Graham MPR 8-1-12 Fairness
Graham MPR 8-1-12 Fairness
Graham MPR 8-1-12 Fairness
By: Carl Graham, CEO, Montana Policy Institute Ive been thinking a lot about fairness lately and what that word means in our current social and economic context. People like me who believe in free enterprise and effective but limited government are often tarred with accusations that were uncaring or indifferent to the plights of our fellow citizens who, for whatever reasons, arent getting a fair share of the American dream. I think thats both biased and inaccurate for several reasons, some of which reflect of the fairness argument itself. Fairness standards are inherently subjective and, at least in their more utopian strains, have a nasty habit of ignoring basic human nature and economic laws. Nobody shakes their fist and bemoans the unfairness of gravity because heavy things fall on peoples feet. If you drop something and it breaks your toe, thats not unfair; its a predictable consequence of your actions. And yet many people argue we should ignore the laws of economics because its unfair, for example, for some people to have more stuff than others. If some people do more, are blessed with natural advantages, or even are just luckier than others, theyll probably end up with more stuff. We can argue all day about whether and to what degree that outcome is or isnt fair, but its going to happen in any economic or social system that includes human beings. Wishing unfairness away will no more avert it than wishing that anvils float will keep your toes intact. All too often at the intersection of fairness and facts we tend to wish away hard choices and tradeoffs. Central planning is a great example. The former Soviet Union and China famously had five year plans designed to match the wants and needs of millions or billions of people with the production capabilities of economies that in turn produced millions of products. Those central planners wished away the simple and immutable economic principles of supply and demand, and the free markets unique ability to balance desires and design. The result was starvation, bread lines, shoddy goods, gulags, and generations of wasted human potential. That might be fair in the sense that everyone outside the elite was more or less equal, but it was hardly fair in the sense of allowing people an opportunity to live fulfilling and happy lives. So how does the fairness argument play out in Montana? To me, fairness means having rules that are predictable and that dont arbitrarily discriminate, holding everybody equally accountable to those rules, and then allowing individuals to reap the consequences of their
2|Page