Monday musings from Stephen L. Hall!
***
There is a meaning to words which is frequently lost on most people not because they do not understand the words themselves, but they fail to comprehend the nature of the words. In a previous post I pointed out that “hate” is either a noun or a verb, but it is not an adjective, ergo anyone who uses “hate” as a adjective is ignorant.
“That is not fair” is a phrase used by three year olds, teenagers, and leftists of advanced education everywhere. It is used to imply that others are “unfair”, mean, cruel, and other assorted bad things. In their mind, it is the end of any debate, but in reality it is a clear signal that the person using the word is beyond reasoning.
“To argue with a man who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead.” – Thomas Paine. The instant the “fair” word is brought out you may as well laugh in the speakers face, call them a fool, and walk away. They will not understand what you are saying and they have just told you that they do not care what you are saying.
It is because the word “fair” is a subjective term, not an objective term. “Subjective”: “relating to the way a person experiences things in his or her own mind: based on feelings or opinions rather than facts”. As opposed to “objective”: “existing outside of the mind : existing in the real world”.
As a subjective term, the quality of fairness only exists within the mind of the speaker, only from their perspective, and based upon their feelings. As such, there is no amount of evidence which can be brought to bear, no facts, no line of reasoning which will dissuade the speaker. “Fairness” carries with it a predetermined conclusion and not merely a position statement of the speaker.
One of the best examples, and often used, is the determination of “fair” in relation to wealth, income, taxes, and money matters in general. That is the cry of the left, that people don’t earn a “fair” wage, now transformed into a “living” wage as if those people were dying in the streets from a lack of wages. In taxes, they want to be sure that people pay their “fair” share.
So what is “fair” when it comes to such a thing as taxes? There are four basic different tax schemes, but because “fair” is subjective, the argument can be made for each scheme that it is the “fair” system. Those schemes are: progressive, proportionate, regressive, and capitation; although many people would say that a capitation tax is simply a type of regressive tax.
The argument that a progressive tax is “fair” can be made base on the premise that individuals having more wealth, property, and income thus benefit more from the protection of the state in protecting their property from thieves, robbers, and con-men. In the alternative, leftists would argue that taking more from those who have more leaves them a little more equal after the money is taken, egalitarian without regard to how it is earned.
Alternatively, it is a simple argument that a proportionate tax, also called a flat tax, is “fair” in that each and every dollar earned is treated the same in terms of taxes. Certainly a flat tax is efficient in economic terms because it has a minimal impact upon individual behavior as it provides no discouragement for people earning more money.
There is also an argument that a regressive tax is the more “fair” tax for a society as those individuals with higher incomes can afford their own security, they can afford alarm systems, safes, panic rooms, and even sprinkler systems in their homes if they want them. As such, it is poor people who can be seen as using and needing more of the services of the state in police, fire, sanitation, and other public services and utilities. It is thus only “fair” that they pay for those services that they are consuming.
The “fairness” argument for the capitation tax, also called a head tax or a nose tax in that if you have a head or a nose, then you pay the same amount, presumes that the state serves to protect the individual from violence of their neighbors invading, or criminals in the street. As such every person, rich or poor, benefits from the military and administration of justice, then everyone has an equal responsibility to pay for those services.
Each person may have their own preference as to which tax scheme they consider fair, but that is hardly the point. The point is that a valid argument can be made for any of these taxes to be called “fair” and that each argument is in some manner reasonable.
But that is only because “fair” is a subjective idea, a conclusion drawn by one’s own preconceived notions and emotions. We could go further discussing whether taxes should be high or low, and still have “fairness” arguments about both, but that is a distraction from the real point. Taxes are only discussed as an example of the subjective nature of “fairness”, there could be many other examples.
It is a fundamental principle of logic and reason that the criteria upon which any decision, discussion, and argument must be based is that of objective facts and standards as well as valid reasoning. But, for now, let us just consider the objective facts and standards.
Science separated from alchemy precisely because the scientific method required objective, real world, observable and repeatable outcomes which creates confidence in the soundness of the conclusions of scientists.
The jury system for determining facts was set up so that the state could not pretend to believe facts that they wanted just to get to the conclusion that they wanted. It is a system designed to have a measure of objectivity independent of the state for the determination of facts upon which justice may hang.
But there are those who have created so-called sciences such as psychology and sociology where the criteria are often subjective validated by statistical trends or tendencies. More recently even more subjective subjects have been created such as gender studies, cultural studies, and environmental studies.
In legal fields, there has been an enormous increase in arbitration, regulatory hearings, agency ran contested cases, and specialty courts such as magistrate courts and family law courts with talk of an increasing reliance upon such juryless processes. Sometimes the rationale is that these types of proceedings cost less, sometimes that they are merely enforcing regulations not laws, or minor infractions of the law to conserve judicial resources.
The tests become ever increasingly subjective in the name of “fairness”. Just last week I discussed a trend in both of these fields where psychiatrists have declared even gender to be completely subjective, and the Department of (In-)Justice have declared that it is up to the alleged victim to determine what they subjectively want to be to the guilt and liability of anyone they want to accuse and the administrative law judge will subjectively determine the facts, with a presumption that “fairness” is in the eye of the “victim”.
It was once said that we were a nation of laws and not of men precisely because the laws were objective standards and not subject to the subjective and thus arbitrary whims of state officials. There is a maxim in law oft neglected: “That cannot be law which defies reason.” Subjectivity is the enemy of reason. No free society can be without objectivity and reason. Anything “fair” is not base in objectivity.
“Fairness” is the enemy of any free and rational society.
