To the ancients, blindness was an extremely desirable attribute of the deity of justice. Is it not ironic that this “blindness” is now one of the most common objections to competitive market processes? In issues of justice, blindness is desirable because all people are treated equally under the law – even the rich and poor, the healthy and sick, etc. There can be no special favors granted on behalf of one group at the expense of another, nor could one group rig the system of justice in its favor. When it comes to market transactions it seems that all bets are off. The very same people who scream the word “justice” from the rooftops, having little understanding what it means, simply interpret the unequal outcomes that result from the equal treatment of people in the process of law and competition are “unjust.” Those outcomes may be unfortunate (or not), they may be awkward, but they are not unjust in any classical sense of the word. Do you get to use the term both ways?
thanks to 50 years of leftist indoctrination in our schools, we are now a nation of victims (unless of course, you are a white, middle-class male). unequal outcomes are de facto evidence of “unfairness”, and require a “just” redistribution of wealth to assuage the victimized. Failure is no longer allowed, at least to the extent one is inconvenienced; not that
personal “uncomfortableness” should become an impetus to self-improvement!
Our tax and legal codes are riddled with carve outs, exemptions, set-asides and special treatments, all paid for by a continually over-taxed, underrepresented middle-class.
The rule of law? Equality before the law? Quaint, but old fashioned ideas i’m afraid in the US of 2010…
Wintercow is one hell of a headline author, but what else would we expect from a great teacher who comes into class to engage both the one or two students who came half-prepared, and the rest?
You go, wintercow!