C
CPA2
Guest
Adarand v. Pena
The Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1987 is the basis for the dispute. The DOT appropriations measure awards contracts to “socially and economically disadvantaged individuals.” The author thinks that the DOT is trying to be “fair” by giving contracts to the “needy.” The problem is defining “fairness” and “needs.” From an economic standpoint, fairness and needs are concepts that are not useful because both concepts are hard to define and compare among individuals (Sexton, 1999). “Fairness is not an objectively determined concept once it departs from identity… Fairness, like needs, is in the eye of the beholder (Friedman, 1990).”
A system based on taking from the “haves” and giving to the “have-nots” will fall apart. “Many people would perceive their needs as more urgent than other people’s needs (Sexton, 1999). “If what people get is to be determined by ‘fairness,’ who is to decide what is ‘fair?’…In addition, if what people get is determined by ‘fairness’ and not by what they produce…what incentive is there to work and produce (Friedman, 1990)?” “If all are to have ‘fair shares,’ someone or some group of people must decide what shares are fair – and they must be able to impose their decisions on others, taking from those who have more than their ‘fair’ share and giving to those who have less (Friedman, 1990).”
The author supports Adarand in this case. Adarand did not receive equal protection under the law. Justice was not done. The author believes that the only way to bypass Washington is for the states to ratify a Constitutional amendment. The amendment would give all citizens the right to a trial by jury when the plaintiff is the government and the defendant is a citizen. A jury may have given the subcontract to Adarand.
References
Friedman, M., & Friedman, R. D. (1990). Free to Choose. New York: Harcourt, Inc.
Sexton, R. L. (1999). Exploring Microeconomics. Orlando: The Dryden Press.
The Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1987 is the basis for the dispute. The DOT appropriations measure awards contracts to “socially and economically disadvantaged individuals.” The author thinks that the DOT is trying to be “fair” by giving contracts to the “needy.” The problem is defining “fairness” and “needs.” From an economic standpoint, fairness and needs are concepts that are not useful because both concepts are hard to define and compare among individuals (Sexton, 1999). “Fairness is not an objectively determined concept once it departs from identity… Fairness, like needs, is in the eye of the beholder (Friedman, 1990).”
A system based on taking from the “haves” and giving to the “have-nots” will fall apart. “Many people would perceive their needs as more urgent than other people’s needs (Sexton, 1999). “If what people get is to be determined by ‘fairness,’ who is to decide what is ‘fair?’…In addition, if what people get is determined by ‘fairness’ and not by what they produce…what incentive is there to work and produce (Friedman, 1990)?” “If all are to have ‘fair shares,’ someone or some group of people must decide what shares are fair – and they must be able to impose their decisions on others, taking from those who have more than their ‘fair’ share and giving to those who have less (Friedman, 1990).”
The author supports Adarand in this case. Adarand did not receive equal protection under the law. Justice was not done. The author believes that the only way to bypass Washington is for the states to ratify a Constitutional amendment. The amendment would give all citizens the right to a trial by jury when the plaintiff is the government and the defendant is a citizen. A jury may have given the subcontract to Adarand.
References
Friedman, M., & Friedman, R. D. (1990). Free to Choose. New York: Harcourt, Inc.
Sexton, R. L. (1999). Exploring Microeconomics. Orlando: The Dryden Press.