FAIRNESS

I wanted to further the conversation about "fairness". I said earlier that good policy creates fair processes, and doesn't coercively create "fair" or equal outcomes. When government is outcome based they wind up stealing from one entity to give to another. A perfect example is the "fairness doctrine" which congress is trying to start up again. This policy basically tries to thwart conservative talk radio by claiming that they dominate the airwaves, which they do. It states that for every conservative show there needs to be another show of the opposite opinion......liberal. This supposedly creates "fairness".
Let's examine why conservative talk radio is so popular and if they have succeeded because of some sort of unfair tactic. Up until Rush Limbaugh's ascension to fame in the early 90's there were very limited viewpoints of news, and most of them had a liberal bias to them. It certainly wasn't as pronounced as now, but it was definitely there. Just look back at who the New York Times and others have supported as presidential nominees in an election.......always the Democrat. That practice still astonishes me given that they are supposed to be unbiased.
When Limbaugh came around he began saying things that much of America believed but hadn't heard said on the airwaves. He began giving a voice to a large group of people's views. People listened........a lot of people listened!!!! Radio station managers and owners realized that if the syndicated him nationally more people would listen. So they did, and guess what - he became the most listened to radio personality of all time, and still is. Every day 10's of millions of people literally vote one by one, by tuning in, as to whether or not they like him. It's the democratic process in action. To legislate against it would be to disenfranchise those who want to listen to conservative talk radio, and economically steal from the sponsors and radio stations, by forcing them to program inferior - less listened to shows. I ask you, is that fairness??????
Interestingly, the same reasoning is at the root of all sorts of other issues, like graduated tax rates that are heavier on the rich, racial quotas and affirmative action.......etc It's a lovely SOCIALISTIC package of bad policy.
Could you imagine applying that same process to an election? 'Well, that state already has one Democrat Senator, it's only FAIR that we allow a Republican to take the other slot'. Are you kidding????? That's insanity - but that is what happens when you try to ensure fair outcomes instead of fair processes.