By Louis Avallone
–
The “pick-and-roll” is one of the oldest and most commonly used plays in basketball to get an easy basket for the offense. A “pick” is a screen, or a block, for the player with the basketball, designed to create confusion on the defense, and provide an advantage to the offense for an easy jump shot, lay-up, or slam-dunk. But despite its popularity, and its obvious intentions to increase the number of points scored, and thereby the likelihood of one’s team winning the game, there’s still hardly a commentator, or fan alike, who is calling for banning the use of the “pick-and-roll” because of its obvious advantage to one team, over another.
But if the folks in Washington had their way, the “pick-and-roll” and the advantage of the easy shot it provides, would be history, deemed “unfair” to those teams who don’t know how to run the “pick-and-roll” at all – especially since the president reminded reporters recently that his job, as president, is “to make sure everyone has a fair shot.”
Of course, this raises the question, what is “fair”? If we search, word for word, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, we will not find the word “fair.” The First Amendment, for example does not limit Congress from abridging the “fairness” of speech nor of the press, but the “freedom” of speech and of the press. Nor does it protect the “fair” exercise of religion, but the “free” exercise thereof.
But therein lies the problem with folks in Washington these days. They often substitute “fairness” for “freedom.” As the economist Milton Friedman once said, “I am not in favor of fairness, I am in favor of freedom.”
But why is that? Well, “fairness” means someone has to decide what’s fair for you, and for me. For some folks, this seems just fine, depending on their definition of “fairness.” Unfortunately, far too many of our citizens are unfamiliar with the notion that a society that puts equality before freedom will largely get neither.
After all, fairness is not achieved by having someone else, or the government, decide for you, what is fair. Liberty means equality of opportunity – the freedom to take that shot at making that basket – not the equality of the score or a guarantee of victory.
Good, bad, or indifferent – it just doesn’t work that way (at least not in this world).
Now, you’ll find many examples in history, of countless countries whose politicians have squandered their nation’s resources and concentrated power in themselves, all under the guise of the high-minded principle of establishing “fairness.” The results, in those instances, have been failure at best, and bloody persecution at the worst. As more aptly expressed in 1776, by the economist Adam Smith, “I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good.” Or, in other words, as Ronald Reagan said, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”
So, should the pursuit of “fairness” be abandoned, then? Of course not. Establishing “fairness” means establishing rules, and the procedures for resolving disputes about those rules. That’s it. It’s not about determining the outcomes of our separate activities.
But is that what the president means when he says his job is “to make sure everyone has a fair shot?” Does a “fair shot” mean equality of outcome?
Well, most folks, when they talk about “fairness”, are talking about three basic concepts of “fairness”: First, there’s the “fairness” where everything is equal, across the board. Equality of outcome reigns. No one has more than another, regardless of his or her efforts, or lack thereof.
Then there’s the concept of “fairness” as deservedness. This is, basically, the idea that you get what you deserve. The hardest working and most diligent folks should have more than the lazy and the indifferent, right?
And the third concept of “fairness” is based on the “needs” of others. It embodies the Biblical teaching, “for unto whom much is given, much shall be required.” The degree of fairness, then, is determined in direct proportion to the responsibility, and compassion, that you have to your fellow man.
Of course, while the “needs” based fairness concept is honorable, and desirable, for individuals to practice and promulgate, this is not the role of our government. In fact, such would be very different than how our Founding Fathers viewed government, which was more of a referee. Government instead has now seated itself to protect us, from ourselves, and whether we want to be protected or not, promoting “fairness” as social justice, at the expense of freedom.
Unfortunately, this is what Democrats in Washington believe is their moral duty to establish, and this will transform our country in the process.
The bottom line is this: When you are out there on that “basketball court of life,” take the shot. Whether you’re six-foot-four, or four-foot-nothing, take the shot. Whether you are behind the three-point line, or in-the-paint and under the basket, take the shot. In the words of Emerson, “Do not go where the path may lead; go instead where there is no path and leave a trail.” So play the game – especially when there’s inequality of outcome, and particularly when the shot is a difficult one to make. Liberals won’t get it, but that’s okay, because we understand that the “journey is the reward.”