I heard a parable recently about fairness, justice, and loving thy neighbor. It was heartwarming. A group of children were going to have a footrace with the prize being a bag of candy.
Miraculously, halfway through the race the students all decided to link hands and cross the finish line simultaneously so that everyone received an equal share of candy. Most of the listeners in the room murmured their approval for this seemingly selfless act. But was this act selfless or selfish?
The organizing principle behind this brand of fairness and equity is that the only way to achieve equal outcomes is to forcibly hold back others. In this case everyone received an equal, guaranteed amount of candy.
A different strategy would be to allow all of the children to do their best. The winner would then have the option of sharing all of the candy (including his or her share) with all of the other children.
Applying empirical evidence and critical thinking to the parable results in two very different outcomes:
Outcome 1 Everyone is forced to perform below their potential Everyone receives a smaller share of candy. Everyone’s a victim of coercion.
Outcome 2 Everyone performs up to their potential. Everyone receives a larger share of candy (except the winner who receives something far greater). Everyone gets to exercise their free will.
Case Study I
To those who have spent time in the rooms working on their addiction challenges the above construct is known as “loving them to death” (recovering addicts tend to be blunt). The idea being that providing deep, unconditional support may feel like the loving thing to do, in practice it can be brutally destructive. The bug in the system is that the well intended often neglect to identify a clear definition of success.
The definition of success for child rearing is to end up with engaged, motivated adults relentlessly pursuing self improvement with grace. Unfortunately in this case success is defined as proactively preventing their fellow students from achieving the above via the misapplication of love.
Case Study II
The above constructs are also applicable to macro economics. Clearly, holding others back is fundamental to any socialist economic system. Trading prosperity for ‘equity’ is what makes socialism to so many. The Germans call it Schadenfreude. The basic premise being that not providing for your family is perfectly acceptable (even encouraged) as long as you are preventing your neighbor from providing for his family. Again “loving them to death” by everyone crossing the finish line at the same time.
Conversely, an economic system based on free will allows everyone to maximize their potential and to lift up others as they see fit without coercion. It’s axiomatic that an increase in individual achievement increases group achievement overall. It’s just math.