subject: Fairness Or Simplicity? [print this page] Simply put, an unavoidable and unfortunate side-effect of drawing lines is that fairness and simplicity seem to be inversely proportional. As such, they work against each other. Of course the naive dreamers will demandboth.
However, seldom if ever can something be simple without it being unfair. Conversely, seldom if ever can something be fair without it being complicated. Of course many unfair issues in life are easily overlooked because they are relatively superficial not worth obsessing over.
To digress slightly, it is important to note that what is superficial or not is ultimately opinion anyway. But bear with my terms for the sake of the argument. For instance, getting stuck in a "slow" line at the supermarket. It is unfair but simple: you just wait longer than somebody else should. Supermarkets could implement what would be relatively complicated protocols for fairness' sake, though who really cares about such trivial issues?
But what about other issues which are not so superficial? Take the inherent problem with our tax code, most notably its complexity. It is overly complicated because, it is thought, its progressive nature makes it more fair (assume once again this is true for the symmetry of this argument, for I know many will disagree with this because of valid disagreements as to what fairness can entail).
Let's introduce the idea of the Fair-Tax. For it to work in its purportedly simple manner, it must brook few if any exceptions, otherwise it will swell into another bloated gazillion page encyclopedia of exceptions rather than a few simple rules. But without myriad exceptions, people will instinctively bitch and complain that they should not be subject to the same tax or burden as somebody else.
For instance, if the tax is fixed, whether I buy a bag of raw broccoli or somebody else buys a pack of cigarettes, this does not seem fair to me (and perhaps even the smoker) as it is likely he or she will pose a far greater burden on society than I myself will eating broccoli. Of course most will justifiably claim that we must implement exceptions that are "obviously" reasonable. But which exceptions are "obviously" reasonable?
If you have a difficult time responding to this with anything but a smug, know-it-all grim, does it occur to you that there exist so many special interest groups only because each believes wholeheartedly that its mission is sacred and hence "obviously" reasonable? Where must we draw the line on what is to be considered a "reasonable" exception? For the fair-tax to truly be what is claimed of it, it must be both fair and simple. But this seems problematic because of the inverse proportionality of these two variables. Must not fairness yield to simplicity or simplicity to fairness? Resolving society's most pressing issues with both fairness and simplicity is, for lack of a better expression, a pipe dream!
Alas, we as a society are faced with the confounding issue of whether to aim for more fairness or more simplicity in our affairs . The consequences of disagreement over this manifest themselves in ugly ways. All options being far from perfect or ideal, who should determine the proper level of balance? It seems individual members of society have an inclination to deemtheirs the correct or ideal level.
Food for thought: to those out there that operate under the supposed pretext that it is noble and virtuous to "stand for the/YOUR truth", does this stand seem one more of virtue or ARROGANCE?
In the end, fairness and simplicity can only be balanced in arbitrary and imperfect ways, the choice of which will likely be based on individual perspectives and life experiences.
