| MTZehvor said: Then you're simply setting the bar for what to evaluate fairness at a certain level. Once a certain set of rules or guidelines, along with some background details, are established, anything that gives one side an unfair advantage is unfair. I'm simply taking the same concept of fairness, and using it to evaluate the background of the situations as well. To put it another way, imagine I fought Mike Tyson in a boxing match. So long as neither of us cheated by taking steroids or something, it would be a "fair" competition. Yet, people would say "that's not even a fair fight." Why? Because I'm obviously starting off at a disadvantage (namely barely having boxed at all in my life and being nowhere near as strong). The competition is only "fair" if you disregard the background knowledge to the situation, which is what fair means in regards to rules. If you apply the same standards to everything, however, including background information, it becomes far more difficult to make the case for it being fair. Also, just as a heads up, you can end your sentences with more than just ellipses. =p |
If your idea of fair includes having equal initial conditions then you may as well conclude that nothing is fair but that doesn't mean competition can't happen as far as economics go ...
To put it simply, you may not like the rules that economics has laid out and the same goes for many people but EVERYONE must play by those rules including the formerly filthy rich people ...
