April Freeman Banner 2014

ARTICLE

A Page on Freedom: Number 22

AUGUST 01, 1985 by HOWARD BAETJER JR.

Is It Fair?

Many think we can decide fairness by looking at how things are. We can’t. Fairness depends on how they got that way.

Advocates of a faulty doctrine called “comparable worth” say it is unfair that women in certain jobs are paid less than men in other jobs these advocates deem equally valuable. Some American auto makers say it is unfair that the Japanese can sell their cars for less than American counterparts. Advocates of income redistribution say it is unfair for wealthy people to accumulate more wealth than others.

But these inequalities are not necessarily unfair. They might be, of course. Suppose the women are paid less because the men have a union which forces employers (through violent strikes) to pay them above-market wages. That would be unfair. Or suppose the Japanese can sell their cars for less because the U.S. government imposes quotas on the number of American cars sold. That would be unfair. Suppose wealthy people receive more income than others because the government gives them other people’s money. That, too, would be unfair. Each of these situations would be unfair—not because of their inequality, but because they occur through force.

On the other hand, if the wages are freely negotiated and agreed upon, if Japanese cars sell cheaper because Japanese auto workers produce more for less pay, if the rich make their money by providing a desired product at an affordable price, all is fair no matter how unequal. We might not choose those outcomes, but they are fair.

Process determines fairness—fair process, fair outcome. If a process involves force and legal privilege, its outcome is unfair, though equality itself. But as long as a process is free and peaceful, its outcome is fair.

This is why the market process—free, peaceful exchange—embodies economic justice.

—Howard Baetjer Jr.

THE FOUNDATION FOR ECONOMIC EDUCATION, INC.
IRVINGTON-ON-HUDSON, NEW YORK 10533

ASSOCIATED ISSUE

August 1985

comments powered by Disqus

EMAIL UPDATES

* indicates required
Sign me up for...

CURRENT ISSUE

April 2014

Around the world, people are struggling to throw off authoritarianism, with deeply mixed results. From Egypt to Venezuela, determined people build networks to overthrow their regimes, but as yet we have not learned to live without Leviathan. In this issue, Michael Malice and Gary Dudney discuss their glimpses inside totalitarian regimes, while Sarah Skwire and Michael Nolan look at how totalitarian regimes grind down the individual--and how individuals fight back. Plus, Jeffrey Tucker identifies a strain in libertarianism that, left unchecked, could reduce even our vibrant movement to something that is analogous to the grim aesthetic of architectural brutalism. The struggle for our lives and freedom is a struggle for beauty; it begins inside each of us.
Download Free PDF

PAST ISSUES

SUBSCRIBE

RENEW YOUR SUBSCRIPTION