What we accept in pursuit of fairness

By Deborah Thornton

--

Discussions of “fairness” and “equity” are rampant. There must be fairness and equity in all things. And if not, something must be done. Two books highlight this issue.

The first, “Who's the Fairest of Them All?” by Stephen Moore, is a short discussion of opportunity, taxes and wealth in the United States over the past 100 years, offering real results of economic growth, wages and tax policy.

Four major tax cuts - under Presidents Harding and Coolidge in the 1920s, Kennedy (1960s), Reagan (1980s) and Bush (2000s) - all resulted in significant economic growth and increased tax revenues. We all benefited each time rates were cut as jobs, investment and innovation increased. In the '20s, we got radios, indoor plumbing and movies. In the '60s, we purchased televisions, dish washers and Mustangs. In the '80s air travel and microwaves became normal, and Bill Gates was busy.

Following the early 2000s cuts, even the poor - those most “unfairly” treated - could afford color TVs (97 percent), personal computers (78 percent) and cellphones (82 cent). Virtually every home now has technology that was unthinkable 100 years ago.

In addition, revenue collected by the government increased significantly in these periods. Unemployment decreased and real incomes increased. Women and minorities increased their incomes at greater rates than others; the poor became less poor, and people moved into the middle class. This sounds pretty “fair” to me.

State tax rates also have impact. States with the largest population and economic growth, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Nevada, Texas, and Utah all have low or no personal income tax. In contrast, high income tax states, Michigan (6.85 percent), New York (12.62 percent), Ohio (7.93 percent) and Vermont (9.4 percent) have lost jobs and population. Tax cuts change behaviors and conditions, encouraging work, saving and investing.

The flat tax and a simple tax code without deductions and loopholes, Moore argues persuasively, are fairest of all.

The second (and scary) book is “Unlearning Liberty - Campus Censorship and the End of American Debate,” by Greg Lukianoff of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. Lukianoff presents evidence of freedom of speech suppression on high school and college campuses in the name of “fairness.” Young people are learning to just keep their mouth shut - and that it is right and appropriate for those in power to control and punish those who offer differing opinions.

The First Amendment is designed to protect minority opinion. The idea that wrong or minority opinion must be suppressed - even if considered racist or hateful - can hurt any one of us, because we are not always going to be “right.” Protecting an individual's right to be wrong protects all rights. This, Lukianoff writes, is no longer true in schools and colleges, where it should be most true.

Lukianoff discusses how this leads to intellectual weakening, as shown in “Academically Adrift,” where researchers found that few students know “how to argue or think critically.” A University of California Los Angeles report shows that 60 percent of college freshmen believe they are “above average” in discussing controversial issues, more tolerant, able to see someone else's view and open to having their views challenged. Yet 70 percent believe that “colleges should prohibit sexist and racist speech on campus,” up from less than 60 percent 20 years ago.

The step from prohibiting sexist and racist speech to suppressing other speech - on campus, in workplaces and communities - is a small one.

Speech codes and censorship are encouraged under the guise of “fairness.” Government redistribution of private assets is also accepted in the guise of “fairness.” As my parents used to say, “Who said life was supposed to be fair? Now get to work.”

l Deborah D. Thornton is a research analyst at the Public Interest Institute, Mount Pleasant, www.LimitedGovernment.org. Comments: Public.Interest.Institute@LimitedGovernment.org