Authored by William Robert Barber These days, the meaning of “fair” is more ambiguous than certain. Today, the word is often used as an impromptu query answered more as a rhetorical reciprocation wherein the questioner as well as the queried dance to the beat of an open-ended loquacious repartee.
In other words, fair’s relevance is as meaningful as an attorney’s contrivance, a regulator’s discretion, or a judge’s predication. However, the word “fair” aligns with wholesome synonyms such as reasonable, just, and evenhanded. “Fair” is a ragingly favorite descriptive used by socialists and progressives.
The essence of the word frequently emotes amid the populous a righteous, even moral acceptance. Of course, “fair” is not necessarily righteous or moral but arbitrary and subject to the facilities of circumstance and interpretation. For example, surely it is not “fair” that some of us are not as intelligent, beautiful, or strong. Some of us are born poor, others rich; some are born with devastating handicaps, some live to a hundred while some die young.
Living things are subject to natural selection, a quintessential self-serving process; wherein “fair” is not a factor of consideration. Therefore, “fair” in the world of beings is more myth than real.
The judicial system works fairer when one has unlimited cash. The world is much fairer for those with money than those without. One-man-one-vote simply means it costs more money to win an election. Persuasion has a far-better chance at consensus with cash than without. It is not definitive that money is everything; indeed it is not — but it is mostly everything. The forthcoming election will pit one billion dollars against the counter parties’ one billion dollars. The media will make lots of money. The political parties will hire huddles of college graduates, many with law degrees, to concoct lies, scurrilous falsities, and machinations of almost the truth. Exuberant pundits will levitate while progressives and conservatives knife-fight their way to the bloody finish. So clearly one can surmise that “fair” is not a party to any of the forthcoming. What will matter is the power of one’s ‘currency’ of persuasion. In the finality, the destiny of the nation is a contest between hope and fear; and frankly, no matter the winner, I do not believe in this dangerous world that hope stands a chance. My fear is that because there is no “fair” the Democrats will triumph and this nation will maneuver itself into the political abyss of socialism wherein “fair” is legislated into the quantitative of equal. Naturally, of the equal some will be equal-plus.