The other day I heard a Presidential administrative person speak of ‘leveling the playing field’ by giving small businesses a tax break to hire unemployed persons; I also heard the President speak of giving tax breaks to small businesses that give raises to their current employees. I am not concerned with weather these ‘tax breaks’ are a good idea or not. I am interested in the idea of ‘leveling the playing field’ itself.
What playing field was unlevel? I assume it was the field that made the big business big and the small business small and that both the big and small businesses are competing on that same field of business. ‘What?’ has made the playing field unlevel, if it is unlevel, needs investigation! Is it not the ‘rules of the game’ being the same for each player or team that makes the field level and the game fair? Fairness itself is a matter of all players competing under the same rules. Less agile big players competing against more agile small players may just make for a good game!
Now, if the field is unlevel it must be because there is some rule that favors one size (kind), big or small, over the other; and, if that is the case, the field could be leveled again by getting rid of the rule creating the original imbalance. Creating more rules on top of uncorrected imbalances by granting new favors to the previously disfavored, will probably fail to correct the initial underlying problem and escalate a demand for counter favors among competing groups. Granting favor to some necessarily disfavors others; and (what is most interesting to me is that) the grantor of the favor becomes the powerful party that needs to be appeased by both the favored and disfavored for as long as favors are ever granted. It may forever be a mystery as to what was ever done wrong by the disfavored in the first place. As for the favored they must always continue doing things in the same way that brought about their being favored in the first place, or they must risk losing their favored status in the eyes of the powerful grantor of favors. (I also find it interesting that their ‘status’ as a favored group did not even exist until the favor was granted; before the favor was granted they were just like(equal to) everybody else.)
I grew up the eldest of six children and many family squabbles and fights regarded the rules governing family functions were about who was to do what chores and how and when to do them. The arguments were about fairness. Why did one person have to abide by the rule and the other wouldn’t? I remember, if the chore had to deal with some age/ability appropriateness, we would mark the calendar as to when we could teach the youngster the task and reestablish fairness to the system. (It seems that we are all created equal except in our ability to do the given task before us; even though each person may be able to accomplish the given task, one person is almost sure to excel beyond another person given their differing abilities and/or attitudes.) I remember learning that both girls and boys could take out the garbage, wash dishes, vacuum carpets, sweep the floor, even mow the lawn by a specific age, and worst of all be called on to change a diaper. Weather one wanted to do it or not did not matter much. What mattered most was why one shouldn’t have to do it like all the rest of us? I remember also learning that some jobs were easier than others and that for some reason it was sometimes worth trading a few days of sweeping the floor for one day of taking out the garbage or for trading five days of work cleaning the dishes for the job of once mowing the lawn.
Maury Garvey Jan. 31 2010
To go in the direction of creating a level playing field.
Is to go in the direction of a belief that includes the possibility of a level playing field.
Playing by the rules in a particular game of baseball is playing within a context that is not only bigger than that particular game.
The context surrounds the game.
What does it mean”to await moderation”?