fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
I don't think "unfairness" should ever be out of bounds.For all of you who think that appeals to "unfairness" should be out of bounds, I propose that the government keep student loans firmly in place and strictly hold borrowers to the terms of their loans. Also, the government should issue refund checks to everyone who paid for school without going into debt. The result of my policy -- which now that I think about it is really pretty awesome -- would be that the Karamazov household receives about $125K from the government as reimbursement for my kids' college (so far). I promise I'll spend this money on luxury items, thus stimulating the economy and providing much-needed jobs in the automotive industry, electronics industry, and high-end whisky industry.
Sure, that would suck for people who borrowed, but just because it sucked for you doesn't mean it needs to suck for me. Borrowers are made no worse off than they were before, but I receive the financial assistance I need to switch over from swill like Makers Mark to the Pappy Van Winkle that I deserve.
But I think we're using the concept of "fairness" differently. We both agree that the world can be very unfair to people. It's my view that one of the most important roles of government should be to try to diminish that unfairness. That often means that the government has to treat some people more favorably than others. I don't want the government to evenhandedly treat everyone the same. I want the government to take things from people that the world has treated kindly and give them to people that the world has treated less kindly.
I recognize that paying off student loans is complicated and doesn't fit neatly into what I described, this was just my attempt to distinguish between different visions of "fairness" with respect to government action.
Last edited by a moderator: