No one fully trust the market to reward those with "marketable" skills. For instance we prevent naturally occurring monopolies from taking hold. Additionally both republicans and democrats, manipulate the market to reward those they identify with. When republicans are not openly and hypocritcally promoting those they identify with, they will say that they are trying to ensure that society is fair and rewards those with marketable skills or willingness to work hard withing marketable skill sets. When democrats are not promoting their own, they say they say they are trying to ensure that society is fair, by helping those that the market has overlooked. Government officials should not just seek to advance groups they identify with, but should seek to modify the market as much as possible to promote freedom, openness, transparency, and justice. But how do we get people to promote justice over self interest? And how do you seek justice when one group thinks justice is defined by insuring those who work hard and have marketable skills are able to get ahead, when the other group doesn't think that it is fair that anyone gets ahead?

Some people's definition of justice doesn't think its fair that anyone who is not "nice" should be allowed to thrive in a market economy. They want to pass out economic rewards based on political purity, or ideological beliefs.

Some people's definition of justice doesn't think its fair that anyone should prosper over other people. We are not responsible for our genes, our advantages in life, we are just born into a situation with certain opportunities, and so why should I have the opportunity to thrive while those in remote china are destined to extreme poverty?

Republicans believe that it is just or fair that those with skills or willingness to work hard in marketable endeavors deserve to enjoy the fruits of their labors. Democrats point out that life is not fair.

There are also unprincipled people within both the republican and democratic party that do not seek any kind of justice, but seek power through whatever arguments they think will benefit them or those groups they identify with.

Within a free society individuals are rewarded economically if their skills match up with what skills that society determines are marketable. Thus someone in Japan with sumo wrestling skills will be rewarded and in America a basketball player will be rewarded more than those with "less marketable" skills of a teacher. 

Some do not like the decisions that the market makes.

 concerned that those who are rewarded in life neither workDemocrats have two complaints. First they point out that if life is a test, the test is not fair. Second, even if life is a test, is it fair to reward those with superior brains or bodies?

Before you dismiss democrats as a bunch of sore losers at the game of life you have to address their valid arguments. For instance what do you do about the handicapped? According to a purely republican philosophy any sort of governmental charity among the Neanderthals would have only encouraged the procreation of less efficient hunters and gatherers. 

This can be described as survival of the fittest, or even happiness for the fittest. 

Part of the ability to enjoy your labor is the ability to bless the lives of your children. Democrats worry about those children whose parents do not bless their lives, and believe that society does not reward those who work hard, or do not think you should have to work hard, or have marketable skills in order have life's essentials provided for you. Both sides emphasize their belief in justice, but have different views of what justice is. I believe it is possible to ensure that our society rewards those with skills and willingness to work hard within marketable career paths, while also addressing democrats desire to ensure that the game is fair.

One way to do so is to focus our charitable efforts on children. But what about the handicapped and those without marketable skills? Many survival of the fittest type republicans will agree that we should provide for the truly handicapped, but will ask you in privacy if a well meaning and charitable Neanderthal government have ensured the prorogation of less efficient hunters and gathers. Apparently their point is that charitable governments have the unintended consequences of rewarding inefficiency, and mediocrity. However no on really wants to live in a survival of the fittest world, where the inefficient, unhealthy, or unsuccessful are encouraged to starve to death. No one seriously advocates cross breading government programs that encourages those with high IQs to procreate with athletic types. However Ashton Cutcher did propose a suspicious reality TV program called Beauty and the Geek.

We all want to live in a just society. But is it just That those who win the game of life often do not win because of their skills, or willingness to work but because their parents provided them with more opportunities than their peers.

Democrats often try to make up for perceived injustice of the test, but they so alter the test that republicans think that life no longer rewards those who are willing to work but that it rewards the lazy. And so is there any way that you can make sure everyone has an equal chance, without so altering the test that it no longer rewards those with more skills and who are willing to work hard? I think it is relativly simple: you focus all your democratic party programs on early life, so that each child gets as much of an equal start in the game of life. However, as people become adults, harsh reality needs to reward the worker, and punish the layabout. 

It would be inefficient, and unjust to not allow those with superior skills or work ethics to benefit from working in marketable endeavors. 

So what is to be done? Should republicans fight for the rich, and democrats fight for the poor, or is there a 3rd way? Is there a principled way that seeks for justice, that rewards those with more skills, and willingness to work, but also tries to make the game of life fair? And how do you define fairness or justice? Is it fair that some are born with great minds, skill, looks, social skills and athleticism? 

A government in the age of the Neanderthal would have harmed human progression if it had subsidized less efficient hunters, and gatherers, and ensured that they had just as many opportunities to procreate. 

to , or who are willing to work at marketable endevors, Some say that a just society would give everyone an equal start. But a free society allows individuals to try to give their kids a head start. An efficient society will use the motivation of helping your children as a means of motivating you to work harder.

We must be a free society, that allows parents to try to give their children head starts. Parents can buy millions of dollars of tutoring, and educational videos, counseling, and mentorship, and this all helps society. From one standpoint, all this help for some kids is not fair to the children who will compete against this kid who's parents are poor. But freedom in this case is more important than fairness. And in one sense it is fair. If the parents would have been more talented, or worked harder, then they could have also provided an advanced childhood for their children. 

Is it fair to let a child be punished because of his or her parent's laziness or lack of marketable skills? It doesn't matter if it is fair or not. Governments can not over-rule nature, and will exhaust all its resoruces trying. Some people are more talented than others, and no matter how much government tries, they can not make life fair, if you think it is unfair that some people have more skills than others. Government can not force stupid people to be smart or make lazy people work hard. But they can tax labor so much that no one wants to work hard.

I personally think government makes a mistake when it tries to fight against nature. I think that smart, tallented people with 

But you have to look at multiple generations in order to be fair. It is not just to take a 

For a society to be just, it must reward the gifted and those who work hard. It must also allow you to benefit the life of your children. However a society becomes unjust if children of wealthy people are able to succeed. If the gifted and those who are willing to work very hard do not have the means to succeed, then society is less just.