If one child complains that he didn't get as much food as his brother because his frankfurter was cut into four pieces, while his brother's hot dog was cut into five pieces, we laugh. What we often don't realize is that the definitions of "fairness" that adults use are often every bit as arbitrary as those of children. This is why politicians are so in love with the word "fairness." Using that word justifies their attempt to swoop in, ignore merit, overrule the market, and take something from one group of people to give it to another group of people who are more likely to vote for them. So next time someone starts talking about "fairness," put your hand over your wallet, put on your thinking cap, and consider that what liberals define as "fairness" could look extremely "unfair" if you're open minded enough to take a look at it from another perspective.
1) Affirmative Action's only "fair?" The idea here is that we're going to discriminate against white Americans who have not done anything wrong in order to help black Americans who may not have been discriminated against so that we can make up for past discrimination against black Americans. That begs the question: Do we flip this around at some point and start deliberately discriminating against black Americans again to make up for the government's discrimination against white Americans? It may sound outrageous, but that ridiculous idea would be every bit as "fair" as Affirmative Action.
2) Making losers pay for legal costs would be "unfair" to the little guy! Because liberals get a lot of money from trial lawyers, they oppose a "loser pays" rule for lawsuits. They justify this by saying that system would be "unfair" to the people suing. Why, what if they couldn't afford to sue because their opponents’ legal fees would be too high? Of course, that's a really backward way to look at it. After all, how fair is it for someone to have to spend countless hours of their time and tens of thousands of dollars defending themselves from a meritless lawsuit without compensation? Surely, if it's "fair" for the plaintiffs to get money if they win, then it should be "fair" for the defendants to at least have their expenses covered if they triumph.