One of the most compelling points in Arthur C. Brooks? new book, The Battle, is his consideration of the notion of ?fairness? in public policy.
Brooks contends that much counterproductive policy stems from a general unwillingness to fight a faulty argument that wealth redistribution is fair. This unwillingness helps a small minority, Brooks? ?30 percent coalition? of the governing elite and its supporters, impose bad ideas on the rest of us:
Admittedly, it is easy to be intimidated by the rhetoric of ?fairness.? Nobody wants to sound anti-poor. It is no surprise, therefore, that many in the 70 percent majority have chosen just to cede to the 30 percent coalition the fairness issue and content ourselves with making the case for economic efficiency. ?Sure, socialism may be fairer to the poor,? you may have found yourself saying, ?but it?s terrible for the economy.?
Proponents of free enterprise must not make this mistake. Fairness should not be a 30 percent trump card but rather its Achilles? heel. Equality of income is not fair. It is distinctly unfair. If you work harder than a coworker but are paid the same, that is unfair. If you save your money but still retire with the same pension as your spendthrift neighbor, that is unfair. And if you stay in your house and make the mortgage payments even when its value drops but your neighbor walks away from his without recourse, that is unfair.
Fairness is a system that rewards hard work, merit, and excellence. It is a system that rewards the honest makers in society. We do not have to punish the takers, but we certainly should not punish the makers. Real fairness does not mean bringing the top down (beyond procuring the funding we actually need for a functioning state). It means giving the bottom a fighting chance to rise.
