Pod Insights LifeBlood 2536: The Curios Case of Fairness About this episode The word fairness dominates modern political and economic debate. But what does it actually mean? Is fairness about equal rules? Equal opportunity? Or equal outcomes? And what happens to a society when the conversation shifts from creating wealth to distributing it? This episode explores one of the most powerful and misunderstood ideas shaping modern life. George’s newest book is available! Get your copy of The Meaningful Few here: https://amzn.to/4qA26X9 Feeling busy but unfulfilled? The Meaningful Few helps you identify what truly matters, eliminate distractions, and live with intention and clarity. Learn more here: MyMeaningfulFew.comWant to say “Thanks!” You can buy us a cup of coffee.https://www.buymeacoffee.com/lifebloodThanks, as always for listening! If you got some value and enjoyed the show, please leave us a review here:https://ratethispodcast.com/lifebloodpodcastCopyright LifeBlood 2026.
Transcript 0:00 Speaker 00 Cash flow crunch? OnDeck's small business line of credit gives your business immediate access to funds, up to $200,000, right when you need it. Cover seasonal dips, manage payroll, restock inventory, or tackle unexpected expenses without missing a beat. With flexible draws, transparent pricing, and control over repayment, get funded quickly and confidently. Apply today at ondeck.com. Funds could be available as soon as tomorrow. Depending on certain loan attributes, your business loan may be issued by OnDeck or Celtic Bank. OnDeck does not lend in North Dakota. All loans and amounts subject to lender approval.
0:45 Speaker 01 I am a working-class guy. I have experienced and enjoyed success, at least a moderate amount of success, in most everything that I've ever really invested in and wanted to do. I'm proud of the achievements that I've made, of my accomplishments, of the life that I've lived. And there are a countless number of people that are far more successful than I am, and there are a countless number of people that are not as successful as I am.
1:27 Speaker 01 So I guess that's the framing. But I've never, ever thought, "That's not fair." This isn't fair. When I look at the people that are more successful than me, again, many, many, many countless people, I don't look at that and say, "Well, that's just not fair." They're more successful because of inequality or a lack of fairness. Now, you can look at me and say, "Well, you know, it's because you're X, Y, and Z, and that's the reason you have the perspective that you have." That's not really relevant to me. What you think about me is irrelevant to me.
2:10 Speaker 01 And I'm so I am a person who I look inward and I say, what could I do differently? Because while I've enjoyed success, it's never been a straight line. It's not some boulevard of uninterrupted green lights. It's not a straight line river. It is a meandering path of success, the way that all things, most things naturally occur. Not too many straight lines in nature, not too many straight lines in success. I was thinking about wisdom the other day and wisdom is so important, gonna be more important than ever before.
2:53 Speaker 01 And so much of where wisdom come from is from learned experiences and failures and then the examination of what could be done differently. How did I screw this up? How, how could I get better and enjoy more of whatever it is that I want? More success, more whatever. But I certainly never said, that's not fair. This is not fair. Fair, fair, fair. I find that word to be stupid. I certainly have a sense of unfairness. Like, if I'm competing against somebody and they cheat, and that's not fair. You won because
3:38 Speaker 01 you cheated. That's, that's not fair. So, what's the point of all this? Well, Washington State Governor, his name is Bob Ferguson, the state of Washington just passed a millionaire's tax. And Bob, in the statement, whether it was a statement or he just X'd it out, tweeted it out, he said, "It represents historic progress in rebalancing our unfair system." Historic progress in rebalancing our unfair system. So, I mean, triggering things, I find that to be so triggering.
4:23 Speaker 01 And that it's word "fair," we just constantly hear it today. Politicians love it. Activists love it. People don't seem to want to or be able to argue against it. Everyone should pay their fair share. Your fair share. Fair economy. This policy is gonna make things more fair. I guess, to the untrained ear, that sounds noble and maybe moral, kind of obvious. They'll, "Oh, wow, yeah." If there's, if there's an unfair system at work, that we're being oppressed by,
5:07 Speaker 01 or we're having to live under, we need to take action and restore fairness. But if you pump the brakes for just a second, you realize that nobody's really defining what that means. Because the moment you start to define it, that's when you discover that people mean very different things when using the word. And that's when this plot thickens. Because you think about, was fairness, was that part of the reason for the founding or the creation of our American experiment? Let's think back and look at those founding documents.
5:48 Speaker 01 The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Federalist Papers. You know what's missing? Not a lot of talk about fairness. They were spending more time thinking about and talking about things like liberty, self-government, property, representation. The complaint that sparked the revolution was not, "Taxes are unfair." It was that taxes without representation are illegitimate. That's very different. Very different. Our founders believed life would produce unequal outcomes because that's how life works. They knew that some people would succeed more than others,
6:32 Speaker 01 as many people have succeeded more than me. They knew that some people would accumulate massive wealth, and that some people would not at all. But as long as the rules were the same, the system was just.
6:48 Speaker 01 Fairness meant fair play, not equal results. Think about a race. Two runners line up. The starting gun goes off, they start running. One wins, one loses. The outcome, not equal, but the rules were the same. Therefore, the race was fair. Right? That idea dominated Western thinking for a really long time, like centuries. And then, something changed. The late 1800s, early 1900s, the world industrialized. We created factories and railroads and oil and started manufacturing steel.
7:33 Speaker 01 And what happened was, well, some people started those companies, started those industries, and fortunes, like never before, suddenly appeared. And with that, became inequality. Cities filled with workers, factories were filled with laborers, and things began to slowly shift. So people started asking a different question, not, "Were the rules fair?", but, "Were the results, or are the results fair?". And that subtle shift, that really changed everything. One of the most influential thinkers in this idea of fairness and the way that we're talking about fairness today was a guy named John Rawls.
8:17 Speaker 01 And he wrote this book called "A Theory of Justice", arguing that a society should be judged by how its system affects the least advantaged members. Put that another way, inequality is not acceptable. It is not an acceptable thing, but it can be, only if it improves the lives of those at the bottom. Okay?
8:46 Speaker 01 Inequality is not acceptable unless it improves the lives of those at the bottom. So that really reshaped a lot of our modern political thinking. It introduced this concept that fairness probably is going to require some form of redistribution, that the system might need to move resources around just a little bit in order to remain just. And many policy arguments that you see today are built on that idea. But there was also another argument that not everybody agreed upon. Friedrich Hayek said, "Asking whether market outcomes are fair is like asking whether the
9:31 Speaker 01 weather is fair." Because a market isn't designed, it's not engineered, they are emergent systems. Millions of people making millions of decisions all at the same time. There's not one person sitting in a control room assigning outcomes, even though it feels like or it seems like a lot of the people advocating for redistribution of wealth, that they believe that that's the case. GLP-1s are changing weight loss.
10:01 Speaker 02 My sister had amazing.
10:03 Speaker 01 The ideal treatment is.
10:04 Speaker 03 Seems like everyone's a GLP-1 expert these days, but when it comes to your health, it pays to listen to someone who actually is. Like OrderlyMedds.com, with 50% off your first two orders and personalized support along the way. We're making it easier to get started. Visit OrderlyMedds.com. Bringing orders to the chaos of GLP-1s. Individual results may vary. Eligibility and prescription required. Not medical advice. Visit OrderlyMedds.com for details. Compound and medications are not FDA-approved.
10:30 Speaker 04 Cash flow crunch? OnDeck's small business line of credit gives your business immediate access to funds, up to $200,000, right when you need it. Cover seasonal dips, manage payroll, restock inventory, or tackle unexpected expenses without missing a beat. With flexible draws, transparent pricing, and control over repayment, get funded quickly and confidently. Apply today at OnDeck.com. Funds could be available as soon as tomorrow. Depending on certain loan attributes, your business loan may be issued by OnDeck or Celtic Bank. OnDeck does not lend in North Dakota. All loans and amounts subject to lender approval.
11:01 Speaker 01 Hmm. So, asking whether outcomes are fair, it really doesn't make any sense? To Hayek, fairness belonged to the rules, not the results. Going back to that race. Were the conditions the same? Were the rules the same? Then it's fair. Has nothing to do with who won the race. Who won the race? That was determined by the faster person. Hmm. Crazy. Shocking. But that's not even the most interesting idea. Because there are certainly deeper things at work here. And really, nobody's really talking about it. And that's the idea of envy.
11:43 Speaker 01 Nietzsche referred to this as resentment. Resentiment. It's a good term. He believed that many moral systems are born from resentment. From people who feel powerless. People who can't achieve something themselves. So they redefine success as, wait for it, immoral.
12:07 Speaker 01 He also believed that resentment often disguises itself as virtue. Not always, but sometimes it does. And this creates one of the most uncomfortable questions. When we talk about fairness, are we talking about justice? Or are we talking about envy? Because those two things look pretty similar, but they come from different places. Long before Rawls and Nietzsche was Aristotle. And he drew similar distinction. He wrote that human beings experience two different emotions when they see someone else succeed. One is admiration, and the other is envy. Admiration says, if that person achieves something great, maybe I can too.
12:52 Speaker 01 Envy says, if I cannot have it, neither should they.
12:59 Speaker 01 These two impulses shape entire societies and they produce very different cultures. One culture celebrates achievement, the other punishes achievement. So, you see the problem there? That's where the word fairness becomes pretty tricky. Because fairness can mean three very different things. First, fairness can mean equal rules. Everyone plays the same game. That seems reasonable. The second is that fairness can mean equal opportunity. Everybody gets a real chance to compete. That sounds pretty good, too. The third, fairness can also mean equal outcomes.
13:43 Speaker 01 Everybody ends up with roughly the same result. Do they sound similar to you? They might, but they lead to completely different places and completely different systems. Political debate today are often really debates about which version we're talking about. Now, I possess a high level of personal agency. And I recognize that not everybody does. But there are people out there who believe the purpose of society is to maximize agency,
14:23 Speaker 01 to allow individuals to build, create, to take risks, to fall on their face, to get back up, and to eventually find success. Then there's other people who believe the purpose of society is to protect people from those harsh outcomes. Compassionate, yeah, but obviously at odds. Because the more you protect people from outcomes, the more you limit risk, and the more risk you limit, the more you limit innovation. And this is a tension that has existed in most every civilization, and it probably always will.
15:03 Speaker 01 But there's also this really interesting pattern. Is that when societies are poor, politics focus on production. How do we build? How do we grow? How do we survive? How do we create those conditions for human beings to flourish and thrive? But what happens once we do that? Once we pull it off? Through that whole risk, hard work, agency, danger? What happens then? Well, then, our politics is going to shift towards something else. Distribution. Who gets what? Who deserves what? What's fair?
15:42 Speaker 01 I guess, in a lot of ways, it's a sign of success, because when survival is no longer the biggest issue, we start debating over how the rewards should be divvied up. So, I think that the real question is not what is fair. The real question is, what kind of society encourages people to become their best selves? And you probably already know where I come down on this. I believe that it's a society that celebrates agency, responsibility, contribution, achievement, and also compassion. Because the truth is, every functioning society requires both.
16:25 Speaker 01 We need builders, those entrepreneurs, those risk takers who are going to get out there and make it happen. And then there's the caretakers. There's the innovators. There's the stabilizers. The healthiest societies never forget one of the most important things. Wealth must be created before it can be distributed. And, human potential must be activated before it can be shared.
16:54 Speaker 01 There's so much irony in all of this. Because the greatest improvements in human living standards have been things like longer lifespan, clean water, modern medicine, electricity and technology. And none of those things came from committees of people debating fairness. They came from people building things and innovating and risking and solving problems. And then, everybody else benefited from that work and from those solutions. So the question is not, "How do we divide the pie?", but, "How do we create more bakers?"
17:36 Speaker 01 Because the more bakers we have, the more pie everybody gets. And that might be the most fair outcome out of all of it. Fairness. Fairness! Ha! How about this? How about you do your part by doing your best? GLP-1s are changing weight loss.
18:00 Speaker 02 My sister had amazing.
18:02 Speaker 01 The ideal treatment is...
18:03 Speaker 03 Seems like everyone's a GLP-1 expert these days. But when it comes to your health, it pays to listen to someone who actually is. Like OrderlyMedds.com, with 50% off your first two orders and personalized support along the way. We're making it easier to get started. Visit OrderlyMedds.com. Bringing orders to the chaos of GLP-1s. Individual results may vary. Eligibility and prescription required. Not medical advice. Visit OrderlyMedds.com for details. Compound and medications are not FDA-approved.
18:29 Speaker 05 This holiday season, Zaxby's is saucing the halls. Because with Famous Fingers and 12 signature sauces, every sauce has its own holiday flair. How will you celebrate? Classic like Zack Sauce? Spicy like Nuclear? Or even sweet with some heat, like the new Honey Chipotle? No matter what you pick, let it sauce, let it sauce, let it sauce. Celebrate the season the Zaxby's way. Who's got the sauce? Zaxby's. Available at participating locations for a limited time.
Previous 2535: Manual VS Automatic with David Deane-Spread Next 2537: Sanity In the Storm with Andelina "Storm" Grossi Page updated November 10, 2026 · transcript and summary are machine-generated
