I read Farber‘s article in its entirety. It explains well why when APS has been called for neglect of vulnerable adults nothing, NOTHING, was done to protect them. Makes me sick to my stomach.
Try this at a poker game: You get dealt two pair. Another player gets a full house. Try shouting "That's not fair!" and demand to share the pot equally.
On a friend's facebook page I saw a video conversation between a kid who looked to be about ten years old, and an adult woman.
Kid: The wind changes, but you can adjust your sails.
Woman: I understand. Life changes.
Kid: That's not what it means.
Woman: Oh really. What does it mean?
Kid: It's not what life does to you. It's how you react.
The title was "It took me 32 years to learn this."
I keep asking who wrote the Book of Fair? Who exactly wrote the Book of Fair? There is no Book of Fair and "fair" can't be codified without being unfair to someone, anyone, or most for that matter. Who decides what's fair? It's been my experience what's fair is based on who's ox is being gored.
I certainly don't want some government bureaucrat in Washington DC who went to college and then to work in the government, who never had a real job, never started a business, never put his home on the line with the bank to keep that business running, never had to skip a paycheck in order to meet payroll for his employees, never had to work 14 hour days for weeks on end telling me what's fair.
I learned years ago to NEVER use the word "Fair". Fair is a Subjective word that plays directly into the hands of the Post Modernist assault on Western Civilization via language, where there is no such thing as "objective truth".
I always use the words "Just" or "Justice", and define it thusly: Justice is the state when individuals get what they have earned, positive or negative, or conversely do not get what they did not earn, with both conditions occurring in a context where individuals have free exercise of their rights, but cannot concurrently infringe on others' rights.
A "Right" is something that cannot be taken away from an individual, such as "Right to Free Speech", whereas a "Privilege" involves one person (or group) "gifting" something to another.
Hence, welfare is not a right. Welfare is a privilege.
I understand why you feel “there ain’t no fair”, but I think fair is real. It is completely in your control. The key is you treat everyone precisely like you wish to be treated and expect the same in return. Ask nothing of another that they do not freely offer and offer to them only what you deem worth offering. That is what I define as fair.
No politician can be in that position because there is no way for them to offer you anything that they don’t take from someone else. That is the game to them.
Thanks John. As usual, very thought provoking and good use of critical thinking.
I'd like to add some thoughts as to how Mother Nature's blueprint makes great use of "unfairness", inequity, and diversity (REAL diversity, not the man-made kind of diversity). The biochemistry of DNA is the basis for the physical side of life ........ ALL life, including mankind. The manner in which sexual organisms reproduce ensures the survival and perpetuation of the fittest by virtue of natural competition ....... not just for mates, but for absolutely everything that living organisms are faced with after birth as they grow and age through life. Those born with comparatively more useful attributes tend to have a better chance of perpetuating those attributes than those without. Fair? Maybe not, but it's absolutely necessary from the big picture vantage point. Inequity makes the world go round!
The variety of mankind and the overall potential of the species (homo sapiens) has been forever moving forward by virtue of Nature's blueprint of Life and the sexual reproduction of Life. As you have already implied, John: Imagine how drab and unprogressive our planet would be, if not for Nature's creation of the blueprint of Life in the first place. If we're honest with ourselves, we'd see that there's no virtue and no purpose to Life if all were born with exactly the same attributes with no chance to ever distinguish themselves from one another. Kinda like the life of the amoeba has been over the last few billion years, I suggest.
So, here's to inequity. For the sake of humanity, may it always exist!
Fair. That's another fancy word they throw around. They are always and everywhere targeting the unconscious, emotional aspects of thinking. The greater to get leverage on you, my dear.
Another word that is similarly used is “Rich”. Politicians keep saying “Tax the rich” because no one thinks they are rich. But, in fact, the super rich know how not to be taxed.
The idea of an income tax was sold to us with the promise that we would tax the rich and a look at the 1913 IRS Form 1040 shows that the cut off was $3000 while the average annual income was under $1100. Plus, dividends were deducted from income because they had already been taxed at the corporate level. But, today dividends are considered as income and citizens are taxed at more inclusive income levels. So the definition of rich has changed to fit the needs of the government.
So, what I have determined as the current absolutely definite definition of the word “Rich” is, “Anyone who pays taxes”. If you pay taxes, by definition, you are rich. This means Warren Buffett and Bill Gates are actually not rich because they are not taxed due to their huge donations to charity. In many cases the charities are their own family foundations, but that is legal. Just ask the Clintons.
We have developed a very sophisticated language where words mean the opposite of what most people think they mean. Politicians are expert at using them to confuse the public.
About 100 years ago, Andy Mellon observed that high and sharply progressive tax rates resulted in "the rich" paying a smaller share of total tax revenue. They diverted their assets and activities to tax-free but largely unproductive things such as municipal bonds. Coolidge reduced rates, and reduced the steepness of progression. Total revenue increased, and "the rich" paid a larger fraction of it. FDR un-did that (and kept the depression going for a decade). Art Laffer make the same observation. when Reagan reduced rates and the steepness of progression, the same thing happened. When Trump did the same thing, the same thing happened. Just like "fair," Marxists use rhetorical inventions such as "trickle down" to confuse people who haven't been taught (or learned on their own) how to use critical thinking skills.
What makes people happy is available to everyone. It isn’t socio economically driven. Our society focuses on the outer circumstance to determine fairness, as if that determines the quality of one’s life. When in fact, it doesn’t.
Superb post. I love the use of the parable to make a really important point. The best response is often to ask someone to define their terms, or simply ask “what they mean.” The responses often surprise and always entertain, and result in either a thoughtful discourse or someone running away in anger and frustration when you don’t immediately embrace their rhetoric.
"Who told you life is fair? was my comment whenever my kids complained something wasn't fair. Life isn't fair. Stop expecting it to be and get on with finding a solution to your problem.
I read Farber‘s article in its entirety. It explains well why when APS has been called for neglect of vulnerable adults nothing, NOTHING, was done to protect them. Makes me sick to my stomach.
Dixie: I thought that it was w well-written, revealing article.
Excellent analysis as usual!!!!
Thanks for this!!!!
Mark: TY for your support!
Try this at a poker game: You get dealt two pair. Another player gets a full house. Try shouting "That's not fair!" and demand to share the pot equally.
On a friend's facebook page I saw a video conversation between a kid who looked to be about ten years old, and an adult woman.
Kid: The wind changes, but you can adjust your sails.
Woman: I understand. Life changes.
Kid: That's not what it means.
Woman: Oh really. What does it mean?
Kid: It's not what life does to you. It's how you react.
The title was "It took me 32 years to learn this."
I keep asking who wrote the Book of Fair? Who exactly wrote the Book of Fair? There is no Book of Fair and "fair" can't be codified without being unfair to someone, anyone, or most for that matter. Who decides what's fair? It's been my experience what's fair is based on who's ox is being gored.
I certainly don't want some government bureaucrat in Washington DC who went to college and then to work in the government, who never had a real job, never started a business, never put his home on the line with the bank to keep that business running, never had to skip a paycheck in order to meet payroll for his employees, never had to work 14 hour days for weeks on end telling me what's fair.
I learned years ago to NEVER use the word "Fair". Fair is a Subjective word that plays directly into the hands of the Post Modernist assault on Western Civilization via language, where there is no such thing as "objective truth".
I always use the words "Just" or "Justice", and define it thusly: Justice is the state when individuals get what they have earned, positive or negative, or conversely do not get what they did not earn, with both conditions occurring in a context where individuals have free exercise of their rights, but cannot concurrently infringe on others' rights.
A "Right" is something that cannot be taken away from an individual, such as "Right to Free Speech", whereas a "Privilege" involves one person (or group) "gifting" something to another.
Hence, welfare is not a right. Welfare is a privilege.
There ain't no such thing as "Fair".
Do the "rich" pay their "fair" share?
Is the death penalty "fair" for 1st Degree Murder?
I understand why you feel “there ain’t no fair”, but I think fair is real. It is completely in your control. The key is you treat everyone precisely like you wish to be treated and expect the same in return. Ask nothing of another that they do not freely offer and offer to them only what you deem worth offering. That is what I define as fair.
No politician can be in that position because there is no way for them to offer you anything that they don’t take from someone else. That is the game to them.
Thanks John. As usual, very thought provoking and good use of critical thinking.
I'd like to add some thoughts as to how Mother Nature's blueprint makes great use of "unfairness", inequity, and diversity (REAL diversity, not the man-made kind of diversity). The biochemistry of DNA is the basis for the physical side of life ........ ALL life, including mankind. The manner in which sexual organisms reproduce ensures the survival and perpetuation of the fittest by virtue of natural competition ....... not just for mates, but for absolutely everything that living organisms are faced with after birth as they grow and age through life. Those born with comparatively more useful attributes tend to have a better chance of perpetuating those attributes than those without. Fair? Maybe not, but it's absolutely necessary from the big picture vantage point. Inequity makes the world go round!
The variety of mankind and the overall potential of the species (homo sapiens) has been forever moving forward by virtue of Nature's blueprint of Life and the sexual reproduction of Life. As you have already implied, John: Imagine how drab and unprogressive our planet would be, if not for Nature's creation of the blueprint of Life in the first place. If we're honest with ourselves, we'd see that there's no virtue and no purpose to Life if all were born with exactly the same attributes with no chance to ever distinguish themselves from one another. Kinda like the life of the amoeba has been over the last few billion years, I suggest.
So, here's to inequity. For the sake of humanity, may it always exist!
Well said!
Fair. That's another fancy word they throw around. They are always and everywhere targeting the unconscious, emotional aspects of thinking. The greater to get leverage on you, my dear.
John: Yes, although I think you mean subconscious.
Another word that is similarly used is “Rich”. Politicians keep saying “Tax the rich” because no one thinks they are rich. But, in fact, the super rich know how not to be taxed.
The idea of an income tax was sold to us with the promise that we would tax the rich and a look at the 1913 IRS Form 1040 shows that the cut off was $3000 while the average annual income was under $1100. Plus, dividends were deducted from income because they had already been taxed at the corporate level. But, today dividends are considered as income and citizens are taxed at more inclusive income levels. So the definition of rich has changed to fit the needs of the government.
So, what I have determined as the current absolutely definite definition of the word “Rich” is, “Anyone who pays taxes”. If you pay taxes, by definition, you are rich. This means Warren Buffett and Bill Gates are actually not rich because they are not taxed due to their huge donations to charity. In many cases the charities are their own family foundations, but that is legal. Just ask the Clintons.
We have developed a very sophisticated language where words mean the opposite of what most people think they mean. Politicians are expert at using them to confuse the public.
About 100 years ago, Andy Mellon observed that high and sharply progressive tax rates resulted in "the rich" paying a smaller share of total tax revenue. They diverted their assets and activities to tax-free but largely unproductive things such as municipal bonds. Coolidge reduced rates, and reduced the steepness of progression. Total revenue increased, and "the rich" paid a larger fraction of it. FDR un-did that (and kept the depression going for a decade). Art Laffer make the same observation. when Reagan reduced rates and the steepness of progression, the same thing happened. When Trump did the same thing, the same thing happened. Just like "fair," Marxists use rhetorical inventions such as "trickle down" to confuse people who haven't been taught (or learned on their own) how to use critical thinking skills.
Excellent!
Jim: Yes, language perversion is one of the most frequent ways that the public is manipulated.
What makes people happy is available to everyone. It isn’t socio economically driven. Our society focuses on the outer circumstance to determine fairness, as if that determines the quality of one’s life. When in fact, it doesn’t.
Superb post. I love the use of the parable to make a really important point. The best response is often to ask someone to define their terms, or simply ask “what they mean.” The responses often surprise and always entertain, and result in either a thoughtful discourse or someone running away in anger and frustration when you don’t immediately embrace their rhetoric.
Kelly: TY for the support... Asking questions is a fine Critical Thinking strategy.
Perhaps the greater impact of not recognizing your excellent description of “fairness” is that it becomes an excuse for turning it into “victimhood”.
That perception of one's life is guaranteed to ruin any chances of seeing opportunities when they arise. So common and encouraged today.
"Who told you life is fair? was my comment whenever my kids complained something wasn't fair. Life isn't fair. Stop expecting it to be and get on with finding a solution to your problem.
Sun: TY. I was going to write that but got distracted. I just added it in...