On fairness

Fairness is an important, although extremely difficult, subject. One reson for this is that life is not, and cannot, be fair. To a certain degree, fairness is an important and noble goal, but if that goal is pursued too far, the quest for fairness will destroy other, important goals in society.

Most people (me included) feel attracted to the idea of equal opportunity and equal access to the opportunities. Socialists and libertarians agree here. The problem, however, is that life is not fair. This is easily seen when talking of economics: it is not fair that a member of the Rockefeller, the Kennedy, the Hilton or the Bush family is born to wealth. On the other hand, there are more aspects of fairness than just the question of inherited wealth and trust funds. Just like you inherit a family fortune, you inherit talent. It is not a coincidence that Linn Ullman is a full-time writer (in Norway). Her father is, after all, the Swedish film maker Ingmar Bergman. Just like the Italian actress Isabella Rosselini is the daughter of the Swedish actress Ingrid Bergman (not related to Ingmar, however), and just think of the acting family Douglas (Kirk and Michael). This is common everywhere in society: gifted parents have gifted children. This is clearly unfair, but to try to stop gifted people to pursue greatness would be insane. It would make society, i.e. all of us, worse off.

How about gifted people, born in a poor environment? I am convinced that a free society, i.e. a free market, will both allow and help them to pursue their goals. If nothing else, it is a question of economics. A gifted but poor youngster will be able to get a loan to pursue his or her dreams. This is not an act of charity from the money-lender. There are strong incentives to invest in talent.

However, we are not all as wealthy as Paris Hilton, or as gifted as Ingmar Bergman, Alfred Einstein, Jerry Seinfeld or Eddie Murphy. But at the same time, it seems to be a general rule, that the freer the system, the more opportunities for everyone, and the better off is the poor people. A poor Norwegian has a higher standard of living than even a rich Bangladeshean or Zimbabwean. This is clearly not fair, but to redistribute wealth through force from Norwegians to Zimbabweans will not have positive effects. Redistribution is completely negative: it penalizes hard work and kills initiatives. It teaches those who get their wealth confiscated to produce less, and it teaches those who receive the wealth to rely on charity, and thus, they too will produce less.

This is not only true when speaking of Norwegians and Zimbabweans, but it is also true when speaking of forced redistribution from one Norwegian to another. Whether we are speaking of governmental foreign aid, or the functions of the welfare state, the effects are basically the same, and just as negative.

I believe there is a basic truth about fairness: it is a noble goal, but it must be handled very carefully. Otherwise, the quest for fairness will harm society, and hurt everyone, including those it was supposed to help.