Oh, how I hate the word fair

I've mentioned it before.

April 25th:

It is a completely relativistic term. There is no absolute fairness, only what makes people feel negatively is not fair and what makes people feel good is fair. I loathe the word fair.

April 20th:

The desire for fairness is a therapeutic response for the individual invoking it.

A discussion of justice is a much better because, at its best, such a discussion deals with a universal. However, many proponents of justice are using the word when they really are talking about fairness.

And obviously I hate the Rawlsian conception of justice as fairness.

Gail Collins reminds me why I hate it so.

Some Democrats denounced the bill because they said that it was unfair that the union workers were getting dumped on while a lot of the Wall Street fat cats got to keep their golden parachutes. Republicans complained that it was unfair that General Motors paid its workers more than Toyota or Honda does. Many senators took the DeMint line and wanted to know what made the autoworkers’ jobs more important than the home builders or waitresses who were getting laid off, too.

The really hard lifting still lies ahead, and we cannot possibly do it if we’re going to dwell too much on the fairness thing.

We should never, ever dwell on the fairness thing. Fairness is an emotional response that distorts rational thinking.

Example:
I arrive with a cake and I say I am going to share it with you. You say, great. I cut you a little sliver and say here. Then I eat the rest of the cake. Most people would say that's unfair, and many would reject the sliver in protest of the unfairness. But you are clearly better off eating the sliver because otherwise you don't get any cake at all.

Now, an argument can be made that by expressing your displeasure with the unfair cake slicing that you set a precedent for future dealings, but does that really matter? It was my cake. If you bring a cake, then you can split it anyway you want.

My issue with these bail outs and the arguments about fairness is that as a matter of principle nobody should really be bailed out, but we live in an imperfect world and some industries are more important than others. Everybody thinks their industry is more important than it is. People offer self-serving arguments for why they should be bailed out, and in point in fact they probably even believe themselves. I agreed and agree that the financial industry had to be bailed out. It is too crucial to the economy, and just as importantly it has a future. The American banking sector will rebound. The United States has a comparative advantage in the industry.

The Big Three, to the contrary, do not have a future, barring such restructuring that they would not even resemble themselves. It's like saying that all that stands in the way of some ugly girl's huge Hollywood career is ten million dollars worth of cosmetic surgery. Furthermore, I remain unconvinced that 2.5 million jobs will disappear overnight without the bailout. GM and Chrysler will file Chapter 11, still make cars, and gradually unwind as businesses. It will be painful for Michigan and Ohio, but I don't think it will take the entire US economy down. Their loss may even be Ford's gain. There can't be three of them at their present size. So, rather than each downsizing by half, two will fail.