What's Fair?

Vid,

I agree with what you said about ethics and fairness.

I would say, furthermore, that ethical appeals for freedom are self-defeating. For, if the interventionist policy simply doesn't work, the ethics of it isn't an issue. So, making an issue of it implies that it does work, and freedom doesn't

dg lesvic,

Now you've educated me, good on you. Seriously, which I am, I got a lot out of that and it tells me a lot more about you.

I think that we are in basic agreement in what the inevitable results will be in any experiment, scientific, factual, or imaginatory to determine what is fair.

But, what the hell, I had typed a statement here and just erased it. And, in its place I will ask a question, do you agree that the concept of fair is individual and subject to conditions or circumstance and thus not something that can ever be defined satisfactorily.

To tell you the truth I had not thought of it as applying the arena of ethics or morality and focused on the fact that it means different things to each of us, and that is exposed in detailed conversations about "fair".

Ethics, Hmm? Morality, Hmm?

have to think about that.

Do we dare to go into the subject of what is ethics and morality to you and to me as defined by you and me? Might be lengthy, eh?

Videos,

Sorry that I didn't give you a better answer before.

I had said that you could play any "games" you wanted, but shouldn't confuse them with economics.

I believe that was what you were referring to as "cryptic." So let me explain it.

First, as background, here is what I wrote previously, in another thread below, Truth and Economics:

"The Scientific Method is the method of the controlled laboratory experiment, of a single factor of change in an otherwise unchanging environment.

The economist uses that method no less than other scientists, with only this difference. His "laboratory" is within rather than outside his own mind. For, while he cannot create an actual environment of no change, he can imagine it.

And this method of imaginary constructions, the specific method of economics, is as universally valid, objective, and scientific as any other."

The "game" is an attempt to create a laboratory outside the mind, a real world controlled environment.

And that can't be done in the field of human action. You can no more control human action within a classroom than anywhere else. You can control it only within your imagination.

I gathered that the object of the game cited here was to determine what people considered fair. What is fair and what people consider fair are questions for ethics and psychology, not economics. Economics is a science of what works.

That doesn't mean it is without ethical implications. If it's ethical, moral, just, or fair to reduce inequality, economics tells us that taking from the rich to give to the poor is unethical, immoral, unjust, and unfair, because it doesn't reduce but increases inequality.

I think today's fair is a political term used by politicians to mean whatever the responder wants it to mean.

For example, Andrew Jackson said that he was in favor of a "fair" tariff.

Obama wants a "fair" tax code.

Whatever that means.

It usually means something bad (foul) for the taxpayer.

Linda S,

I followed that link when I read Mr. Wilson's essay linked above.

Don't you find it interesting though, that the word fair only made its appearance with the beginnings of the industrial revolution?

"(Late 18th century, actually--the industrial revolution apparently also vastly enhanced our capacity to complain.)"

While it may not say anything about the Anglo peoples per se, one still has to go farther in one's thinking to realize that the industrial revolution was almost exclusively an Anglo development. The one (industrial revolution) seems to have given birth to the other (fair).

As I pointed out above, the industrial revolution gave people more free time to look around and be envious or jealous of what others had, it also provided the free time for the development and widely spread, cross class, enjoyment of a liesure time activity such as Baseball.

Interesting comments on this subject.

Now my good fellows and fellowretes, I am going to be extremely unfair to you.

This youtube video will make you react in a very unpolitically correct way.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yE44Rt_Ch_k&NR=1

Watch it to the end.

The linguistics blog Language Log addresses the question of whether it is true that other languages have a word for "fair" and if so, whether that implies anything about Anglo culture. (No.)

languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1080#comment-20633

Must quiblle with self:

"it is still foul, and even if it is hit in the air and caught by an outfielder for an out, it is still a "foul" ball."

To clarify, a fly ball hit outside the lines is not technically foul until it touches the ground, that is why it is an out if caught before it does hit the ground, fence, or stadium.

Robertsmith853,

I appreciate your support and comments above, so I hope I don't write anything to negate that.

That being said I'd like to point out that vis-a-vis baseball and "fair" vs "foul", you might notice that you were talking about difference in "fair balls" and differences in fair balls does not effect the discussion of the difference between fair and foul. You're talking to a baseball player, coach, and umpire. The standards are: everything between the lines and including the lines themself, home plate, and the batter's box is "fair" territory, everything outside of that is "foul". Those are set in stone standards, and the only vagrancies come from the individual eyesight and judgment of each individual umpire.

A fair ball may be a dribller or a line drive, perhaps even a home run, a slicing shot that kicks up line chalk beyond the base, and even a long fly ball caught by the outfielder is still called a "fair" ball.

Any ball hit outside of those parameters is called a "foul" ball, which is the opposite of a "fair" ball. Yes? It doesn't matter if the foul ball is a rocket shot or a dribble, it is still foul, and even if it is hit in the air and caught by an outfielder for an out, it is still a "foul" ball.

Those are parameters and standards that decide the results of a hit, or the playability of the hit; and which have nothing to do with equality, justice, or the nebulous concept of "fair" which is the subject of the post by Prof Boudreaux.

Fair, as being researched by Prof Wilson, is an emotional concept more than a measurable concept, IMHO. That is why I make the prediction that in the end he will come to exactly the results I predicted, unable to make a definitive statement about what fair is, or how it is to be determined, because it is an individual judgement call and very responsive to circumstances even by the individual making the judgment call.

Being an emotional concept it fits very naturally into the scriptures of the great Socialist Church, and is one of the main concepts used to evangelisize we poor heathens who still think individually.

Now to other concepts where I think you speak in error.

We agree totally that speculating on what prehistoric hunter gatherer groups may or may not have done, by using modern day hunter gatherer groups as the model is a bad move. Doing so only provides a basis for informed speculation, but speculation none-the-less.

I think you make an impossible judgment call to say that modern day hunter gatherer groups are failed societies. There aren't that many left and those that are, generally are in remote areas and had no contact with the modern world until recently. Backward by our standards to be sure, but your word failed is rebutted by the fact that they are still there, still self sufficient, and still reproducing.

Now to change subject to what is also near and dear to my interests:

One thing we all have to aware of when discussing "the Indians" of America,is that there is no one representative example to use. The diversity from the Arctic to Tierra Del Fuego is as complex and numerous as anything reflected in the old world. One gets in trouble real quick by saying, "The indians....did this or that", without defining specifically which tribe, group or era you're talking about.

Robert, you said:

"The difference can be seen between 17th century American Indians and Europeans: Indians: no wheel, no metallurgy, no writing, no sense of public health, no art, no literature, no engineering beyond the rudimentary and no gunpowder. Europe had all those and more. Both were at approximately the same point 5,000 years ago. One progressed and prospered, the other did not."

Some of that is true, other is "foul".

No wheel, they knew the wheel, some were found on children's toys. They just never made the jump to its utility in transportation. Just as curious though is the absence of the sail and ship building, something not pointed out too often.

Writing is a form of communication with the future, and many cultures pre-invasion had developed the art. Incas with their Khipu system of knotted strings that conveyed data to others versed in the system. Pictographs were developed and used by other cultures to convey data to those versed in the system. Even migratory plains tribes carried pictographic documentation, painted on cured hides, of their tribe's past.

No sense of public health, in actual fact and in general the American Indians were far ahead of the Europeans in this concept.

Where Europeans were clueless about even disposal of their own excrement, typically dumping it into the street outside their homes. Disease was common because of poor sanitation, and Queen Elizabeth boasted that she bathed once a year whether she needed it or not. The most vivid contrast to that is the Aztecs who had flushing toilets and bath houses. The indian settlements along the East coast of America had latrine facilities outside the perimeter of the village. They might step outside at night to take a leak and not make the trek, but they didn't take a dump there. Even the migratory plains indians were fastidious about that. I won't beat this subject to death, other than to say that you are wrong on this, big time.

Robertsmith853, I would seriously suggest that you find a copy of the book "1491" by Charles C. Mann for the most current information and discoveries about pre-invasion America.

No art? Gold jewlry, carved ivory, carved wooden statues, carved facades in stone, painted or dyed cloth, painted skins, the list is endless.

No engineering beyond the rudimentary? What are all those pyramids in Central America and along the Andes mountains? The Inca roads are the equivilant in engineering and execution of what the Romans did with the exception that the Incas did not accomodate the wheel. Irrigation projects in the Arizona desert to equal anything in the middle east or Asia. The largest single pyramid in America built near the confluence of the Ohio, mississippi, and missiouri, only made of a combination of pounded earth and stone instead of fitted stone.

No gunpowder, true, but at the time of the invasion the average indian could shoot his arrows more quickly, accurately, and thus more effectively than the white man could fire his muzzle-loader. The white man had an advantage in his cannon, if they had one, but again it was slow in use and exposed the gunners to extreme danger in between shots.

White man's disease, primarily small-pox, conquered the Americas, not superior tools, health, or lifestyle. Within 20 years (1512) such a vast number of American Indians died of diseases that they had no resistance to that by the time the whiteman penetrated away from the coast they found dense forest where just a short time before was managed productive land developed and used by more indians than the whiteman could imagine.

I apologize to all for the martinesque size of this comment, but I do hope it was comprehensive, and "fair".

dg l,

I am just jacking with you my friend.

Perhaps you've forgotten the rhetorical wrist slapping you attempted to administer to me on a previous thread accusing me of "overlooking" or "ignoring" your catch phrase (imperfectly(?) quoted above) of the day. I just wanted to make sure we didn't have to go through that again.

No hard feelings :-)

But tis true, I am sure you now appreciate, that your comment was very cryptic.

Videos,

You wrote,

"dg lesvic,

(disclaimer: if you give to the poor you make them poorer. Did I say that right?)

I don't know what you're getting at?

You wrote,

"anyway, your comment above might be more meaningful if it wasn't so seemingly inappropriate and cryptic."

Let me make it clearer. I feel sorry for the students in that professor's class. Give me the ones who flunked out.

brotio - free thinking is about doing just that, letting your mind go wherever reality can take it. Unfortunately for the left, that leads to a demolition of their ideology. So they have to demonize anyone even attempting to engage in intellectual discourse on free markets. You see someone might "get the wrong idea".

vidyohs - you have to understand, certain people like dg don't like people who engage in intellectual exercises for the heck of it. They think it's impractical or something. I never understood it until recently but it's pure envy of people who are just flat out smart.

Correction: I should have said, No more so than at Mierduck being the first to object when the Professors post anything defending liberty.

"Does anyone act surprised that vidyohs would take an axe to the word 'fair'?"

No more so than at Mierduck being the first to object when the Professors post anything about liberty.

Vidyohs is a more eloquent philosopher than I, so I'm glad he got to it first.

Todd,

Studying the current behaviors of modern hunter-gatherers gains no insight into those of the past. In the modern world, current hunter-gatherers are failed social units. The hunter-gatherers of the past did not share equally. A successful hunter would focus his efforts on providing for his own family first. If there was substantial surplus, that could/would be shared, raising the level of influence within his own group. Repeatedly being able to find additional resources; food, water, shelter, successfully raiding the resources of others, etc. would naturally lead to the position of Chief or King, rather than merely Patriarch. The difference can be seen between 17th century American Indians and Europeans: Indians: no wheel, no metallurgy, no writing, no sense of public health, no art, no literature, no engineering beyond the rudimentary and no gunpowder. Europe had all those and more. Both were at approximately the same point 5,000 years ago. One progressed and prospered, the other did not.

Vidyohs,

I have enjoyed reading your postings in the past, and completely agree with your 4th posting this evening: in fact, I think you've nailed it, but I think you misunderstand the "fair/foul" discussion in the essay. Yes, the rules, for the most part, are etched in stone. But that is not the issue here. Theoretically, a batter can strike a ball that will result in the ball moving anywhere within a 360' circle. But only those that are within the field of play are considered "fair". So, A drive to the left field gap is as "fair" as a dribbler down the first base line or a "dying quail" just beyond the infield. I think the author is trying to say that given a range of possible choices that some or most would be considered reasonable or "fair", while some are unreasonable or "foul", within the context of a particular situation.


Just trying to defend baseball here.

Does anyone act surprised that vidyohs would take an axe to the word 'fair'?

Todd,

Studying modern day hunter gathers offers some insight into what may have been the modus operendi of past hunter gathers but is no guarantee that it is going to be right.

Consider the fact that a hunter gather group may share and own equally the spoils of a hunt in which the group participated; but, quite likely had no share or ownership, as well as made no claim, on the rewards of an individual hunt conducted by one member of the group on his own.

Now, should he hunt alone and bring in game, he would obviously gain status by sharing; but, I would challenge a claim that he would have been obligated to share. The sharing would occur on his own initiative and with those who he chose.

I would also challenge the notion that our brains did not evolve in a world of innovation. Progression from one innovation to the next may have taken longer, but to not see proto and pre humans as innovaters is to miss a very big reality. Move to the Cro Magnon and for stone age peoples innovation was almost dizzying.

I would also challenge the notion that early humans did not have captial markets. My challenge is based on the fact that my imagination can visualize captial as being more than just money. Certainly a successful hunter/gather team of man and mate in Cro Magnon days could collect and store an excess of necessary goods, such as dried meat, cured hides, grains, dried berries, an excess that could be used in trade within or without the group to gain things not produced by the pair and to gain greater status. I would suggest that an excess of goods is capital, and trade in those goods is a market.

I would suggest that wealthy capitalist under those conditions and at those times were admired, emulated, and valued within the group because of the beneficial spill over affect it had on the group.

I would suggest that loathing of successful people didn't evolve until people had enough of life's stuff to give them the liesure to indulge in thinking about what others had or had not. Which would in reality be quite modern and probably within the scope of known recorded history.

dg lesvic,

(disclaimer: if you give to the poor you make them poorer. Did I say that right?)

anyway, your comment above might be more meaningful if it wasn't so seemingly inappropriate and cryptic.

That was poor wording on my part. Let me try again:

Anthropologists, by studying modern day hunter-gatherers, have discovered that successful hunts are shared equally within the tribe, and are not actually owned by the individual hunter responsible for the kill. Rewards for the kill, instead, usually include greater access to women, or an increase in status. Thus a large disparity between rich and poor, or an unequal distribution of resources, would have been the result of someone in the group free-riding off of another individual's effort, or taking more than his "fair share."

Our brains did not evolve in a world of innovations, capital markets, and ever-expanding wealth. I would posit (and this by no means an original thought) that this evolutionary backdrop is responsible for much of the hostility towards markets and wealthy capitalists manifested today.

Play whatever games you want, but don't confuse it with economics.

Todd,

Where, and how, did you come up with this idea?

"Our evolutionary background is in small hunter-gatherer bands....'where one person benefited only at the expense of others;'.... in other words, a zero-sum world.

Posted by: Todd | Jan 27, 2009 6:07:26 PM"

So if Og found a nice chunk of flint one day while alone hunting, picked it up and carried it back to his band's camp, then personally knapped it into a axe head, personally fitted that axe head into a strong wooden shaft, then took that wicked weapon and went hunting alone again a task in which he hid by a waterhole and was able to personally and unassisted kill a small pig, which he brought back to his camp, and personally skinned it, cooked it and ate it.....he did all that at the cost to another, or all, of his band? How did it become a zero sum game to those who did not even play, who weren't even involved?

The truth is, and it probably happened, that the others benefited because once Og got his fill he allowed others to finish off the carcass because he had no way of storing or preserving it.

They still had no valid claim on Og or his new axe, but they received the benefit of it.

What effort did any in his band make on his behalf that he cheated them out of? Are you saying that because they 'are', they were cheated? That they share ownership in everything equally because they 'are'?

In your world view is "being" the only requirement to owning and sharing, thus being in a position to be cheated by any and all actions of others?

I know of people that have that world view, Marx, Lennin, Mao, muirduck, STrUmPiT, Pelosi, Clinton, Kennedy, Reid, Frank, Schumer, et. al., but history has shown repeatedly what a mess the world becomes when they gain control and exercise it.

Are you one of that crowd, or did you just get illogically carried away?

That this aversion to inequitable outcomes is uniquely human should not be surprising at all. Humans are the only animal that appears to rationalize the future and its possibilities. In most cases it is rational to share or assist others because it is generally to our own personal long term benefit. But how we do that is still an individual unique process in which the concept of fair is determined by each individually.

I hope like hell no public money is being spent on the research on "fair".

It is interesting that we find that the word itself is purely Anglo in origination and the concept created as recent as it was. It is also interesting that it reared its ugly head about the same time that humans in the industralizing world were beginning to enjoy a way of creating wealth that did not involve getting up at 4 A.M. and working until after dark 6 days a week and on the 7th just doing half of what they did regularly. They was a real reason for the shift of labor away from farms to factories. Factories may have involved working 12 hour shifts 6 days a week, but on the whole it was a better life, more rewarding in terms of income, cost each individual less of his day, and their existence wasn't nearly as subject to the cruel vagrancies of natural change such as drought or flood.

Industrialization brought the luxury of being able to think about things like equal, just, and create a cocept like fair.

However it is not surprising that it is a creation of humans, because my longtime observation is that the concept of fair does not exist in nature, or even in God's creation if you are a believer.

As for the game of proposer and responder I think Mr. Wilson is doomed to ever come to any theory but this: each incident, each negotiation, and each ultimate agreement depends upon two separate and independent individual concepts of fair which have to work towards agreement.

He may ultimately find statistics that show X amount of times the deal will go one way, Y amount of times another, Z amount of times another way again, etc etc. But, I have to seriously doubt if he will be any closer to understanding fair.

On the subject of the difference between fair and equal, it is obvious that equal is not always fair in the sense that one or the other in a deal may realize less than they had expected and believed that they had earned. And on the other hand, if the results are satisfyingly equal the word fair is redundant and irrelevant.

The word fair may, as Mr. Wilson says, have its origins and best example in the rules of baseball; however baseball has clear set in stone parameters and standards as to what is a fair ball and what is a foul ball. True, those standards are freqeuntly subjected to the necessarily spontaneous judgment of the umpire,; but while the judgment of the umpire may not be consistent the parameters and standards are.

Individuals do not have parameters and standards of equal or fair set in their brains, we aren't hardwired that way. Humans are enculturated to certain paramaters and standards and those are what guide the individual for the rest of his life except in rare, really rare, cases

An individual's perception of fair and his practice of fair may be similar to that of someone else, but it will not be exactly the same.

In my own humble opinion fair is what I negotiate and am satisfied with. The opinions of others are irrelevant to me. From what I have seen and experienced over my life, most individuals are pretty much like that, they decide for themselves what is fair and unsurprising their decision flucuates in each new or unique situation. What they deem fair today with you, they may, and frequently do, contest and bitch about tomorrow with someone else.

God bless Mr. Wilson for his efforts, perhaps something of value will come out of his research.