Fair?

[Noleader]

Word I see a lot in political circles is 'fair.' My question is a simple one: Should one of governments roles be to make things fair/equal?*

*Not referring to Justice (IE the courts or general government interaction with private persons).

[Post]

Indirectly and at extreme circumstances, yes. I think government should step in for racist and sexist hiring, for example.

[Muadi]

I agree with Post, but I also think the question is too broad to answer. Narrow it down a bit?

Should the government take away money from the rich and give to the poor, just to be fair?

Should a candidate be given free air time because the opposing candidate can buy a lot of air time, just to be fair?

Should the government wipe out sports records of those athletes that used enhancers, just to be fair to those that didn't?

[Noleader]

Why should the government get involved in the hiring policy of a private firm?

(I am trying to explore peoples world view. To often do we get caught up defending our own points of view that we kind of white wash other peoples. My intent here is not to debate someones world view, just explore it)

[Post]

Because in the grand scheme of things, I feel government's role is to aid and further society. The reason I'm against squelching freedom of speech, for example, isn't DIRECTLY because free speech is good, it's because of the benefits of free speech and the problems in hindering it. Those things are good, and therefore, free speech is an indirect good.

That's how I feel about all aspects of government, be it the Bill of Rights, taxation, hiring policies, monopoly laws, everything.

[MickeyFinn]

Hiring discrimination happens on a regular basis, sports bars don't just get lucky and have the first 25 applicants be blond with a D cup. I'm for allowing it because a company that utilizes racism or other methods of discrimination ultimately only shoot themselves in the foot.

[Noleader]

Because in the grand scheme of things, I feel government's role is to aid and further society.

Would it not be true that each person acting in their own self interest could further society much better then a small group issueing edicts (one way is by choice other by force)?

As Axe said the first 20 people in the sports bar to apply for jobs our most likely not the blonds with the large bust size, yet it serves the owners best interest to hire them, the girls to take the job, and one might even say the patron to have eye candy around.

The reason I'm against squelching freedom of speech, for example, isn't DIRECTLY because free speech is good, it's because of the benefits of free speech and the problems in hindering it. Those things are good, and therefore, free speech is an indirect good.

I don't really understand what you mean by free speech being indirectly good. I always thought it as a direct good. Could you give an example?

[Post]

"As Axe said the first 20 people in the sports bar to apply for jobs our most likely not the blonds with the large bust size, yet it serves the owners best interest to hire them, the girls to take the job, and one might even say the patron to have eye candy around."

Well, you're looking at the shallow ends of the larger issue. I happen to believe it isn't an "apply to everything" kind of rule, and I do think it's ok to hire upon looks like that in certain circumstances. I also believe it's not an "apply to nothing" kind of rule, however, and that's your insinuated position.

What about not hiring someone in the office because they're black? What about not SERVING someone because they're not black? You may see it as "shooting themselves in the foot," but the fact remains it was a very real and tangible thing until it was illegal. It's conjecture at best and wrong at worst to act as if the issue would simply weed itself out, simply because that's not how it panned out.

Let's just nip this in the bud right now, since this is how a lot of our debates go: are you for government doing NOTHING to make things fair? Are you against ALL monopoly rules, ALL segregation rules, ALL loan sharking rules, EVERYTHING? I won't be able to find ONE example of government making things "fair" that you agree with? Because if that isn't the case, then this really isn't about government making things fair; this is about having different degrees government should take a role.

To which, let me give away the ending right now: the size of role I feel government will be larger than what you feel, and you won't agree with it regardless of what I state. But that isn't an on/off switch of government trying to make things fair or not, like you're framing.

"I don't really understand what you mean by free speech being indirectly good. I always thought it as a direct good. Could you give an example?"

The "yelling fire in a crowded theater" example.

[Noleader]

Well, you're looking at the shallow ends of the larger issue. I happen to believe it isn't an "apply to everything" kind of rule, and I do think it's ok to hire upon looks like that in certain circumstances. I also believe it's not an "apply to nothing" kind of rule, however, and that's your insinuated position.

What about not hiring someone in the office because they're black? What about not SERVING someone because they're not black? You may see it as "shooting themselves in the foot," but the fact remains it was a very real and tangible thing until it was illegal. It's conjecture at best and wrong at worst to act as if the issue would simply weed itself out, simply because that's not how it panned out.


Thats the part I don't really understand. How is it acceptable to make a victim of one person because of looks or weight but not by color or sex... I fail to see how they are different or some how less egregious.

Let's just nip this in the bud right now, since this is how a lot of our debates go: are you for government doing NOTHING to make things fair? Are you against ALL monopoly rules, ALL segregation rules, ALL loan sharking rules, EVERYTHING? I won't be able to find ONE example of government making things "fair" that you agree with? Because if that isn't the case, then this really isn't about government making things fair; this is about having different degrees government should take a role.

To which, let me give away the ending right now: the size of role I feel government will be larger than what you feel, and you won't agree with it regardless of what I state. But that isn't an on/off switch of government trying to make things fair or not, like you're framing.


I am not trying to bait you or even debate my views in this. I am truely interested in exploring someone elses view (you just happen to be one of the few that replies a lot). Most of my friends are swayed into my political views in real life so talking to them is more like a sounding board. I like to try and keep a larger world view and, from time to time, explore the other side of the coin. That being said I might walk away from this still thinking the same but I hope you will consider entertaining my inquery none the less.

The "yelling fire in a crowded theater" example.

I always interpreted rights to extend only so far as they clash with someone elses rights. Doing what you said above would be a case like that. I would reverse your wording a bit (indirectly bad but directly good) but agree in concept.

[Post]

"Thats the part I don't really understand. How is it acceptable to make a victim of one person because of looks or weight but not by color or sex... I fail to see how they are different or some how less egregious."

In this particular case, I see it as an issue of how much choice you have in the matter. Yes, I realize there are specifics to weight and looks that aren't chosen, but it really isn't on the same scale of color or sex (and note I feel it's ok in certain circumstances to use gender, too).

I'm also against using weight or looks when it doesn't apply to the job at hand.

"I am not trying to bait you or even debate my views in this. I am truely interested in exploring someone elses view (you just happen to be one of the few that replies a lot)."

The problem is that (it at least sounds like) you're coming from a position that the principle of government making things fair is not understandable to you. I'm willing to bet, though, there is at least one scenario out there where you agree in government doing just that. And when that happens, you no longer reside on the side of government making stuff fair as not understandable. Instead, you don't understand at a point beyond x degree.

Which makes things extremely hard to explain and defend without using a specific example. That isn't an issue of being hard to explain the principle of government making things fair, though.

Basically, there are things that I honestly believe would make society and/or our way of life if government didn't do them, and (here's the important part), our society shouldn't be completely restructured to accommodate it. What I mean by that is, take torture for example. Let's say it actually worked. I would still be against it, even if it risks losing our way of life, because I don't feel upholding our society's structure is more important than the principle of not torturing. It defeats the purpose of our society, in my opinion.

To go through some of the bigger things I feel it's government role to making things "fair":

- I feel affirmative action and racial profiling should be done at extreme circumstances, and agreeing with one and not the other is hypocritical.

- I agree with monopoly laws and their brethren (things like price gouging and government control over true necessities like electricity and water).

- I agree with tiered taxation, unemployment and welfare.

Note while I believe in those in principle, I may or may not agree with how they're currently being implemented. I can explain any specifics if you want.

[Tammarion]

I think that the entire point of government is to make things "fair". To ensure the largest amount of happiness for the greatest number of citizens. Keep in mind that the default setting of the universe is unfairness. And whatever has been set up has to be sustainable. Just look at the hole that California has dug for themselves in the name of "fairness".
You know, um…I used to think that it was awful that life was so unfair. Then I thought, wouldn't it be much worse if life were fair, and all the terrible things that happen to us come because we actually deserve them? So, now I take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe.

[MickeyFinn]

What a load, really. We allow discrimination of many kinds on a daily basis without complaint. Price discrimination (old people get a discount in an attempt to attract more seniors) is just one of dozens of examples we don't even think about.

I see no value in affirmative action. I'm sure it was created with good intentions and at the time may have been useful to help women become integrated into the workplace but at this point it is unnecessary and detrimental to business.

[Noleader]

In this particular case, I see it as an issue of how much choice you have in the matter. Yes, I realize there are specifics to weight and looks that aren't chosen, but it really isn't on the same scale of color or sex (and note I feel it's ok in certain circumstances to use gender, too).


I still fail to see how it is acceptable for government to allow these cases of discrimination. Is it the lower number of people disenfranchised by the practice the measure of acceptance?

I'm also against using weight or looks when it doesn't apply to the job at hand.

How is that different then a company only hiring white sales personal because they intend to sell their products in regions that are more bigoted.

I think that the entire point of government is to make things "fair". To ensure the largest amount of happiness for the greatest number of citizens. Keep in mind that the default setting of the universe is unfairness. And whatever has been set up has to be sustainable. Just look at the hole that California has dug for themselves in the name of "fairness".

If that is the case why trouble ourselves with personal rights when the collective good is the purpose of government?

[Tammarion]

Not getting where a collective good does away with personal rights. If we were talking about the collective good of sheep or cattle, and all we needed was a big green pasture, a salt lick, and one stall in a barn did as well as another, you might have a point.

[Noleader]

Not getting where a collective good does away with personal rights. If we were talking about the collective good of sheep or cattle, and all we needed was a big green pasture, a salt lick, and one stall in a barn did as well as another, you might have a point.

Allow me to ask this then: To what extent does the fairness extend?

You said: "To ensure the largest amount of happiness for the greatest number of citizens."

Does that mean one could be made to suffer, economically or otherwise, to lift 10 others to a more equal state?

[Tammarion]

Certainly. Eminent domain and exclusion of evidence come to mind.

The trick is in how often and how much its done. Government interference is a societal ill in itself.

Take for instance, search warrants. If X committed a crime upon Y, why should the actions of a third party enter into the determination of guilt or innocence?

[Noleader]

Certainly. Eminent domain and exclusion of evidence come to mind.

Exclusion of Evidence is a means to punish the State for breaking the laws which protect the rights of individuals. It has little to do with being fair to the accused... more to do with reminding the State it must follow the rules.

Eminent Domain, when not abused, does not deprive those of property without just compensation. Not so much about making things fair but does serve a purpose in social growth.

The trick is in how often and how much its done. Government interference is a societal ill in itself. Take for instance, search warrants. If X committed a crime upon Y, why should the actions of a third party enter into the determination of guilt or innocence?

In your example the government is actually the one seeking a conviction. Those that sit on the Jury, your peers, are the ones that make the determination of your guilt.

[Post]

"I still fail to see how it is acceptable for government to allow these cases of discrimination. Is it the lower number of people disenfranchised by the practice the measure of acceptance?"

So is it always unacceptable, always acceptable, or this particular scenario you don't see it? Because by technical definition, bathrooms are gender segregation.

"How is that different then a company only hiring white sales personal because they intend to sell their products in regions that are more bigoted."

What's your question? I'm against hiring when it comes to weight in the scenarios above and hiring white-only sales personnel in the scenario you give. They're not different in the issue I have. Do you mean hiring for weight on a sales job, or a model for example? I already answered that.

As I stated before, the two stipulations are the two pieces are if it's for the greater good, and if it means too many problems and too much of a burden for the state to do it. I don't like that people will hire because of looks in scenarios, but at some point, the greater good restriction will interfere with the problem and burden, like the torture scenario I gave. It happens to cross that line (in my opinion), for the part you fail to see the difference in.

[Tammarion]

And you said "Does that mean one could be made to suffer, economically or otherwise, to lift 10 others to a more equal state?"

Exclusion of Evidence is a means to punish the State for breaking the laws which protect the rights of individuals. It has little to do with being fair to the accused... more to do with reminding the State it must follow the rules.

That's the point. The State following the rules is a common good which outweighs the injustice of the lawbreaker getting off.


Eminent Domain, when not abused, does not deprive those of property without just compensation. Not so much about making things fair but does serve a purpose in social growth.

It still infringes upon property rights, since the owner does not necessarily want to sell, and normally has the right not to. Compensation is just padding the blow.


In your example the government is actually the one seeking a conviction. Those that sit on the Jury, your peers, are the ones that make the determination of your guilt.

Which ideally should be a factual finding of guilt or innocence based on any and all evidence. When the judge gets to exclude evidence, then the Jury is not making a complete determination of guilt.

[]LoL[Harm]

Yes, one of the goals of a government is to make certain things fair. I don't have much else to say since the question was pretty broad. Any particular path you want to move down?

[professorchaos]

I believe our gov't is'nt here to make things fair, but to protect the citizens that are wronged. Individual choice should always reign supreme; so when does gov't step in?
Is it fair for an applicant to not get hired because their 380 lbs and walk like a chicken? yes for an office of 500; no for hooters. My point is subjective to sales/profit to the company. There is never an excuse for racial discrimination, even for a white usher at the apollo. Sex or sexual orientation....well...personally no, but i'm not a military man, police officer, fire fighter, or one that puts my life in the hands of another man, ask them. Age discrimination is circumstantial, as with what most gov't involvment should be with the individual.
My belief is in what our government is on paper (constitution), not what it has become. It makes me sick seeing the federal gov't overstep its boundries and violate a states soverign rights, and of course, some are circumstantial. So what is fair to a "states" rights, and "federal" rights?
Is it fair for religious establishments to receive tax breaks? maybe in small communities, but not when a major church donates 3.5 million to boycott gay marriage in california.
Is it fair to discipline a child who refuses to say "one nation under god" in our Pledge of allegiance? is it fair to even question his right?
Is it fair to build a mosque near the site of 9/11/01 attack? fair to freedom of religion and worship.....but fair to those who were affected by it (personally, i think many of us were affected by it)?
I could go on and on, but right back to the beginning. Our gov't should be there to protect us; those who are wronged.

[MickeyFinn]

something doesn't jive with this statement. "Protecting someone who was wronged"? If they were wronged we didn't protect them. Or are you implying we shouldn't protect anyone until after they are wrongs? The rest of your post is just a string of questions that I can't really put together.