Ginoong Kamote: 'NBA at 50: 1970s The NBA vs. the ABA'

Source:Ginoong Kamote- the NBA finally seeing competition in professional basketball with the ABA.

"The American Basketball Association also succeeded in signing a number of major stars, including Julius Erving, in part because it allowed teams to sign college undergraduates. The NBA expanded rapidly during this period, one purpose being to tie up the most viable cities. From 1966 to 1974, the NBA grew from nine franchises to 18; the New Orleans Jazz (now in Utah) came aboard in 1974. Then, following the 1976 season, the leagues reached a settlement that provided for the addition of four ABA franchises to the NBA, raising the number of franchises in the league at that time to 22. The franchises were the San Antonio Spurs, Denver Nuggets, Indiana Pacers and New York Nets. Some of the biggest stars of this era were Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Rick Barry, Dave Cowens, Julius Erving, Walt Frazier, Artis Gilmore, George Gervin, Dan Issel and Pete Maravich." 

From Ginoong Kamote 

This might sound strange, but I don't think the National Basketball Association survives the 1970s without the American Basketball Association providing the competition that it did and taking players and coaches with them and even forcing the NBA to change it's style and modernize it's game. 

A lot of times competition can destroy a traditional business that's already established, because the new game in town (so to speak) is better and fresher and the establishment product is not able to adjust and goes out of business. But the ABA actually made the NBA better by forcing it to compete and improve its product to the point that they generally merged and the ABA became part of the NBA. Which was probably the ABA's original goal anyway. 

Hoover Institution: Uncommon Knowledge With Peter Robinson- 'The Politics of Hollywood With Andrew Breitbart'

Source:Hoover Institution- interviewing right-wing blogger Andrew Breitbart.

"Identified as one of the ten most important people in the media that nobodys ever met, Andrew Breitbart details why leftward-leaning Hollywood is dangerous for America and why the people who run it are uninteresting, vitriolic, and vicious.  Segueing from Hollywood to the Internet, Breitbart explores why the right dominates talk radio and the left seems to do better on the Internet and how the decline of print media is changing the nature of the national political conversation." 

From the Hoover Institution

Is there is fascism amongst leftists (Far-Leftists, actually) in America, with political celebrities who are famous for their ability to entertain who have used their fame to voice their politics and who view people disagree with them, as corporatists or slaves to the Military Industrial Complex or whatever, as well as there are fascists amongst Leftists who work in politics for a living, again who look down on people who aren't exactly like them, who look at life differently, who didn't grow up in the Northeast or San Francisco or Los Angeles or whatever? Sure ! But thats been around for a hundred years or so.

But there's also Fascists amongst people in the Tea Party, who are still stuck in the 1950s . Who have a very narrow view of America and if you don't share their views, you are considered Un-American as well. 

The entertainment industry as far as what they show and say publicly, leans left as far as how they talk about America and American society. And tend to publicly support leftist Democrats when they run for office. But privately, you are going have a helluva hard time finding people who love American capitalism, liberal democracy, and even America itself, then Hollywood entertainers and executives. Just look at how they live and the wealth that they've created for themselves and the people that they work left.

People can talk like 1960s hippie-leftists who want to change the world and take down the man (the supposed white man) and replace American, liberal democratic, federal, form of government all they want and replace it with some type of socialist, collectivist state. But people can only be who they actually are and believe what they actually believe. A lot of the 1% that American leftists like to talk bad about live in Hollywood, California and the rest of the Los Angeles area, as well as in Manhattan New York. All of these supposed American leftists, are 1 percenters who actually love America. And would just like to see America work for more people, but not try to take down our American government and replace it with some type of socialist state. Because they know that would ruin their way of life and lifestyle.

This is something that Andrew Breitbart (RIP) and people on his side of the political spectrum, don't tend to understand. That there's fascism on the fringes of both sides and if you don't fit into one of the boxes, you are so bad as a person, that you don't even deserve to be listened too. 

If your view of America is only what you see from Hollywood, then your view will be a fantasy for the most part. Because a lot what you see from Hollywood, is from some Hollywood director or producer's, view of how they want America to be. Or how they want people to think this is how they want America to be.

But if your view of America, is only what you see from a fundamentalist religious view that all of America is in the Heartland (meaning between San Francisco and New York) that all Americans go to church every week, that we all religious, that we all come from two-parent families, dad goes to work, mom stays home and raises the kids, homosexuals and minorities are kept silent, nothing but family programming on TV, with Family TV Night etc, then you also have a narrow view of America as well.

Hollywood to me is about entertainment. I watch movies and other things to be entertained and from time to time you see something from Hollywood thats produced about true life. A movie based on a true story (to use as an example) but I don't take the politics of Hollywood very seriously. These people are entertainers and tend to look at things the way they want to. And how they believe the world should be. Not how it is.

Invest Bliguru: Free to Choose- Milton Friedman: 'Cradle to Grave-Public Assistance (1980)'

Source:Invest Bliguru- one of the panel members in this discussion.

Source:The FreeState 

"Since the Depression years of the 1930s, there has been almost continuous expansion of governmental efforts to provide for people's welfare. First, there was a tremendous expansion of public works. The Social Security Act followed close behind. Soon other efforts extended governmental activities in all areas of the welfare sector. Growth of governmental welfare activity continued unabated, and today it has reached truly staggering proportions. " 

From Invest Bliguru

From Cradle to Grave, is referring to how people who were born onto public assistance, raised on public assistance, have kids before they are ready to raise them and live off of public assistance as adults as well, that we literally have had generations of families who’ve lived off of public assistance, because they have never gotten the skills that they need, to be able to leave public assistance. Meaning they would have the skills that they need to get a good job and not have to live off of public assistance, because they have the means to be able to take care of themselves and their kids.

A lot of this is a result of the safety net that was created in America, in the 1930s with the New Deal and the 1960s with the Great Society. Where you had all the social insurance programs that we're designed to help sustain people while they are in poverty, but not do anything to help these people to get themselves off of public assistance and out of poverty once and for all. This is what public assistance was in America, pre-1996. The TANF Law (Temporary Assistance For Needy Families) better known as Welfare to Work, changed all that.

It’s not a question in my mind and I believe many other Americans minds, of whether we should help people, who for whatever reasons can’t fend for themselves. The question is how to we do that. Do we just give them a few hundred bucks each month and expect nothing from them other then using that money to pay their basic needs, but continue to allow them to make the same mistakes, that they’ve made and while they are on public assistance, like having kids when they aren’t ready to take care of them, having more kids, when they can’t take care of the ones they already have, using their public assistance checks to buy alcohol and other drugs, or do we instead help them help themselves, so they no longer have to live on public assistance.

Do we empower people to now have the skills to take care of themselves instead of what we’ve done in that past. The first question is what we were doing pre-1996. The 2nd question is what we’ve done ever since. This is what Classical Liberal Professor Milton Friedman was focusing on in his movie Free to Choose. And interviewed people who hate the current public assistance system and want to see it ended. People who were happy with the current system and people who were speaking in favor of the reforms that happened in 1996, that Democratic presidential nominee Michael Dukakis ran on for President in 1988.

Calvin King: 'Ronald Reagan- Warned Us About Barack Obama'

Source:Calvin King- then private citizen Ronald Reagan campaigning for Senator Barry Goldwater, in 1964.

Source:The FreeState

"How Reagan summed up Obama in the first 5 minutes of a speech over 40 years ago."  

From Calvin King 

If you are ignorant and just downright so dishonest, that you'll say anything, to advance your cause and hurt people you see as opponents, or even enemies, you'll say whatever you can come up with and not let the facts get in the way of a good partisan attack. And perhaps you'll say so much that isn't true, that you'll start to believe your own nonsense. 

I use to believe that people who thought Barack Obama was a Socialist, or an African, Atheist, Muslim, (how someone can both be an Atheist and a Muslim, someone needs to explain that to me) who was born in Kenya and is an illegal immigrant, who's President of the United States: I use to think these people were purely escaped mental patients. Who volunteered for the Michele Bachmann presidential campaign.

I use to believe that people who said these things, we're just straight up making this garbage up. (To be too kind) Because they knew their followers, were ignorant enough to believe them. I mean you want to know why the American education system is in bad shape right now, all the evidence you need to see to believe that is with the people who actually believe this nonsense. (Again, to be too kind) I use to believe that the people who made these claims were simply fools, who don't know any better.

I'm sure there are plenty of those people making these charges, but they aren't the only ones. We simply still have a lot of ignorant people in this country. Who simply don't know any better, which is why they are ignorant, who make up these charges and believe them as well. And yes they are a fringe in America, but the fact is they all vote and all have loud voices in American politics. And powerful enough to get other ignorant Americans behind them.

But let's put some facts on the table just for the hell of it and maybe some ignorant people will learn something. Barack Obama born in Hawaii in August 1961, has a Hawaii birth certificate to show that. He's a practicing Christian who attends church on a regular basis. If he was a Socialist, he wouldn't of bailed out the banking and auto industries, he would've nationalized them. At least until they were ready to be independent again. And he wouldn't of cut taxes by over two-hundred-billion-dollars, but would've raised them by at least two-hundred-billion.

Americans can believe basically whatever the hell that they want to and don't have to pass an IQ test in order to do that. Which is a good thing for a lot of people who believe all of this garbage (I'm too kind) about Barack Obama and they can also say practically whatever they want to. As long as they aren't threatening to hurt people or incite violence and libeling people falsely. 

But again facts are facts and you can't argue with them, because once you do that, you are arguing against reality, trying to convince people of things that are simply false. Which is what a lot of the Far-Right is doing against Barack Obama in America.

HBO Sports: Michigan Wolverines-Ohio State Buckeyes: The Rivalry (2007)

Source:HBO Sports- documentary about the big game in the Big 10.

"One of the greatest rivalries in all of sports--Michigan vs. Ohio State in college football--is examined in this documentary. Featuring interviews with well-known grads, players and coaches (including the late Bo Schembechler, in his final interview) along with rare footage, the film chronicles every aspect of this amazing annual clash that began 110 years ago." 

From HBO 

"Michigan & OSU Rivalry" 

Source:Andrew Domachowski- The Michigan-OSU game I believe from 2006.

From Andrew Domachowski

When you are talking about the greatest rivalries in sports and what are the best rivalries and what makes a great rivalry, you have to know that rivalries are between good, if not great teams and that most of the time if not every time they play each other the game has a lot of meaning. That it's very important to the teams and their fans, but also important to the league and sport they play in. Great rivalries aren't between bad teams or even mediocre team, because when those teams play each other, those games just aren't very important. 

So when you talk about the Michigan-Ohio State Rivalry (or as I call Ohio State, Columbus Ohio, because thats where they play and represent) and you are familiar with these two great football programs, the two most dominant programs in the Big 10 Conference and two of the most dominant football programs in Major League College Football. And that when they play each other, it's almost always to see who will represent the Big 10 in the Rose Bowl and who will have a shot at playing for the National Championship. As well as who'll win the Big 10. The Michigan-Columbus game is almost always a championship game.

This is just one reason why this is such a great rivalry but shouldn't that be enough to call Michigan-Ohio the greatest rivalry in football. Do I really need to expand on that, I'm going to just because there is plenty more that deserves to be mentioned. 

Let's talk regional rivalry, sort of like when the Philadelphia Eagles play the New York Giants. The Michigan Wolverines essentially represent the Detroit area, a large Metropolitan Area of 5M people or so. They come from Anne Arbor which is just outside of Detroit. and about 200 miles south of Anne Arbor, is Columbus, Ohio, where the Buckeyes come from. The biggest city in Ohio (and no, the biggest city in Ohio is not Cleveland) you are talking about a rivalry, thats a border state rivalry, Michigan and Ohio, two of the biggest states in the union. 

Michigan vs Ohio State, is not a Indiana-Notre Dame in football, where the winner of that game has either just won the closest thing that they'll see it a bowl game that season, or just another game on their schedule. Michigan-Ohio state is championship football between two programs that respect each other, but also hate the hell out of each other and almost always bring their best against each other. 

CATO Institute: George Will- ‘Keynotes 2010 Milton Friedman Prize Dinner’

Source:CATO Institute- Washington Post Conservative columnist George Will speaking at the Milton Friedman Prize Dinner.

“Pulitzer Prize winner George F. Will delivered the keynote address at the dinner for the Milton Friedman Prize for Advancing Liberty. Will was introduced by Cato Institute President and Founder Ed Crane. The dinner was held May 13, 2010.”

From the CATO Institute

George Will said in an interview with Charlie Rose in October, 2008 (a future blog post that is coming up) that, there’s a Libertarian Wing and a Social Conservative Wing in the GOP. And that the Libertarian Wing, is getting larger in the GOP thanks to Ron Paul, CATO Institute, and others ,. He’s mostly correct and I agree with most of that. I would just phrase that a little differently.

There’s a Conservative Wing and I mean Conservative across the board not statist in any sense and there’s a statist wing in the Republican Party. So-called Christian-Conservatives (Christian-fundamentalist-theocrats, in actuality)  who now make up the Christian-Right, Tea Party, and people who don’t identify themselves with either of those groups.

Thats the State of GOP today which is made up of people who believe in economic freedom, except for the right for workers to organize, religious freedom for Anglo-Saxon-Protestant-Christians, and they want big government out of our wallets, so they can get in our bedrooms and living rooms to tell us how we can live our lives, who we can sleep with, who we can marry, what we can watch on TV, and what we can listen to, what bars and clubs we can go to, etc. To a certain extent even what we can do with our own money.

Unfortunately for the Republican Party, the Christian-Fascist wing of the Republican Party is winning in the Republican Party. Which is bad for them and anyone who believes in liberal democracy and doesn’t want America to become a one-party state, which is most of us.

As we move along as a country, we are getting younger, more tolerant, more liberal, and libertarian. We are becoming a country that wants big government out of our wallets and bedrooms. Generation X and Y are perfect examples of that.

But as the changes are happening, we have Christian-Fascists who are still stuck in the John Wayne-Ozzie and Harriet’s-Beaver Cleaver’s 1950s America and haven’t figured out that color TV is common and that people like to have a good time and don’t want to be told how to live their lives. That not all Americans don’t fit in with the 1950s establishment, that we are all individuals and don’t fit into the Christian-Fascist box of what Americans are supposed to be. And that if you don’t fit in that box, which is only the size of a lunch box, that somehow you are Un-American, or Socialist.

George Will, is right about the Republican Party in the sense of the two wings that make up today’s GOP. What he would call a Libertarian Wing, that he fits in, that I would call Conservative, which is different. And a so-called Social Conservative Wing (even though they don’t believe in conserving anything) that I would call statist.

There are Christian-Fascist Republicans and are unfortunately for the Republican Party, the Statists are not only coming, but are winning in the Republican Party and are on course to put the Republican Party out of business.

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at The FreeState, on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at The FreeState, on Blogger.

Invest Bliguru: Milton Friedman- 'Free to Choose- From Cradle to Grave'

Source:Invest Bligiru- Helen Bohen O'Bannon, on Professor Milton Friedman's Free To Choose, in 1979.

Source:The FreeState 

“Since the Depression years of the 1930s, there has been almost continuous expansion of governmental efforts to provide for people’s welfare. First, there was a tremendous expansion of public works. The Social Security Act followed close behind. Soon other efforts extended governmental activities in all areas of the welfare sector. Growth of governmental welfare activity continued unabated, and today it has reached truly staggering proportions.

Traveling in both Britain and the U.S., Milton Friedman points out that though many government welfare programs are well intentioned, they tend to have pernicious side effects. In Dr. Friedman’s view, perhaps the most serious shortcoming of governmental welfare activities is their tendency to strip away individual independence and dignity. This is because bureaucrats in welfare agencies are placed in positions of tremendous power over welfare recipients, exercising great influence over their lives. Because people never spend someone else’s money as carefully as they spend their own, inefficiency, waste, abuse, theft, and corruption are inevitable. In addition, welfare programs tend to be self-perpetuating because they destroy work incentives. Indeed, it is often in the welfare recipients’ best interests to remain unemployed.

Dr. Friedman suggests a negative income tax as a way of helping the poor. The government would pay money to people falling below a certain income level. As they obtained jobs and earned money, they would continue to receive some payments from the government until their outside income reached a certain ceiling. This system would make people better off who sought work and earned income. This contrasts with many of today’s programs where one dollar earned means nearly one dollar lost in welfare payments.” 

From Invest Bligiru

When Libertarian professor Milton Friedman made his Free to Choose movie in 1980, he spent one of his chapters on the public assistance system. How we treat people who can't take care of themselves. Keep in mind, Professor Friedman is a Libertarian and went into this film with pre-conceive ideas about our public assistance system. But he not only interviewed Libertarians, but Progressives as well as professionals who work in social welfare.

And they talked about the people who collect public assistance and what their lives are like on public assistance. And what's expected from them as they are collecting public assistance. The history of our public assistance system, from when it was created in the 1930s as part of President Roosevelt's New Deal programs. And where we were as far the effects that the War on Poverty that President Johnson created in the 1960s. And the status of where we were as a country as of 1980 when this film was made.

They were talking about what happens when we take people who don't have the skills to be able to take care of themselves. Lack the education to get a good enough job that would allow them to be self-sufficient. Especially low-income low-skilled people who have kids, but lack the ability to make enough money to be able to take care of themselves. As well as the state of our education system, not producing enough people in the country that have the skills to be able to move on to college and more skills and learn a trade. So they will be self-sufficient and not end up on public assistance in the future.

Especially people with kids that they have to obviously look after, but which makes it more difficult to them to go to school. And get the skills that they need, so they can get themselves a good job and to be able to take care of themselves. And their families and not have to return back to public assistance in the future. Professor Friedman's, main point when it comes to public assistance, that I agree with, is that is you give people money, who can't take care of themselves and you expect nothing from the in the future other than spending what little money you give them to be able to take care of themselves, that they'll remain poor.

If you give people more money, to pay for their food and rent, then you are essentially rewarding them for not getting the skills that they need to be successful in life. But if you reward them to go out and get the skills that they need to be able to take care of themselves and even demand that they do, then they'll do that in return.

CNBC: Dick Cavett Show- William F. Buckley (1995)

Source:CNBC- Dick Cavett interviewing one of the founding father's of the American classical conservative movement in 1995, William F. Buckley.

Source:The FreeState

Dick Cavett after his ABC show went off the air in the 1970s, came back in the 1990s with a new talk show, but this time on CNBC, which is owned by NBC News. And he interviewed someone who I believe is one of the founding father’s of the American classical conservative movement in William F. Buckley, who was still the publisher and contributor for the conservative Firing Line Magazine in 1995. Unfortunately there are no links or videos for that interview online right now. 

ABC News: Bob Woodruff Interviewing John Edwards On Adultery (2008)

Source:ABC News- investigative correspondent Bob Woodruff, interviewing former U.S. Senator John Edwards, in 2008.

"Airing Date Aug.8, 2008

John Edwards ABC "Night Line" Interview On His Adultery" 

From Save Our Sovereignty 

"Airing Date Aug.8, 2008

John Edwards ABC "Night Line" Interview On His Adultery" 

Source:ABC News- investigative correspondent Bob Woodruff, interviewing U.S. Senator John Edwards, in 2008.

From Save Our Sovereignty

I haven't been following the trial of John Edwards this year, other than seeing a few highlights on the tube. (Which is another way of saying the TV and not YouTube) He's clearly guilty of bad behavior, like having an affair with another woman while his wife is dying, while he was running for President. And then trying to cover it up, whether he used campaign funds to cover it up or not. Which we would be stupid thing to do for a few reasons. If simple stupidity was a crime in America, there would be no one left in America to pay Uncle Sam his taxes, because of most of us would be in prison. But in John Edwards case he would be serving life in prison for being an extreme idiot.

What John Edward did for one, it's simply wrong, thats bad enough.

Two, it's illegal, again bad enough and reason why you shouldn't do something like that.

And three, he didn't have to do that, again for several reasons. He's a wealthy man for one and could've paid his mistress off, given her plane tickets to Hawaii and perhaps even a 100 hundred-thousand-dollars in cash and perhaps we never hear from her. And anyone else he needed to do, from his own finances and probably could've covered that up as well. But he should've never been in position to have to do something like that to begin with. He should've had a big enough conscience to not have an affair period. But specially considering his wife is dying, the mother of his kids. And of course the impact that something like that would have on his kids.

John Edwards before his affair, was not going to be elected President of the United States. At least not in 2008, but maybe instead of politics he could've moved to Hollywood and played President in a movie. Why not, he's got the look for that type of role. But back in the real world on Planet Earth Edwards was the number three presidential candidate out of three presidential candidates. Another way of saying last place or the Cleveland Browns. And didn't manage to win one major primary or caucus, a state that could've put him ahead of either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton. He was number three out of three.

John Edwards was a dark horse at best to be selected for Vice President. He had that position in 2004 with John Kerry and other than being an exciting candidate for the Democratic base. But John Edwards looked like Dick Cheney's grandson and student being taught a lesson about U.S. Government 101 at their Vice Presidential debate. They're only 12 years apart by the way. Darth Vader didn't look old, Luke Skywalker, just look way too young and perhaps would've been better off running for Vice President of his 12th grade student class, than the United States.

John Edwards didn't do much for Senator Kerry in places like Ohio and Florida. Kerry wins either of those States, he's elected President in 2004 and perhaps reelected in 2008. And Senator Edwards didn't do a very good job against Vice President Cheney in 2004, in the VP debate. Basically looking a candidate for Vice President of Valley High or some school in North Carolina and a kid. Compared with Vice President Cheney, who looked like a Fellow of Government Studies at AEI or Brookings, compared with  Senator Edwards. Edwards did run a solid presidential campaign in 2004 though and became a Democratic star, which is how he got the VP nomination from John Kerry.

John Edwards was not going to be elected President in 2004 or 2008. He was a one-term Senator with no prior political experience as a public official. He was the New Kid on the Block on Capitol Hill in Congress, who only had his Hollywood handsome looks going for him as a politician. He didn't even serve in the House before either, so he had a steep learning curve going from being a one-term Senator to President of the United States, he would've had a big learning curve. Going from a one- term Senator with no prior political experience, to becoming Vice President.

But what Senator Edwards brought to the table, was star power. The future of the Democratic Party someone who could bring in new voters, especially young Democrats who are tired of cookie-cutter politicians, who seem to own only one suit or 20 different blue suits, who have people feeding them information as far as what to say like people feed their babies, because they aren't able to speak for themselves without sticking their entire legs in their mouths, let alone their feet.

Career politicians who tell us what we want to hear, or at least some of us. I guess the unlucky few, which is exactly what Senator Obama brought in 2008, which was star power,  but took it to a much higher level. Had Senator Edwards postponed his dream or fantasy about becoming President of the United States and spent the next 4-8 years learning about the country, working at a think tank, perhaps Governor of North Carolina or taking a cabinet position, he might still have a political carer right now.

John Edward serving as John Kerry's Vice President, had Senator Kerry been elected President in 2004, would've been a great role and job for John Edwards. He would've learned a lot from a President Kerry, about Washington and about government. And would've been in great position to run for President in 2012, had a President Kerry been reelected in 2008. Similar to Richard Nixon under President Eisenhower, but of course we'll never know.

Common Sense Capitalism: 'Free to Choose- What's Wrong With Our Schools?'

Source:Common Sense Capitalism- Professor Milton Friedman's Free To Choose series, talking about public education in America.

Source:The FreeState

“Free to Choose Part 6: What’s Wrong With Our Schools Featuring Milton Friedman”  

From Common Sense Capitalism 

This film or at least Professor Milton Friedman’s narration of the film is about the lack of school choice in public schools in America, as well as promoting private school choice and charter schools.

I agree with Professor Friedman that one of the main problems with public education in America has to do with the lack of school choice and competition, especially for low-income students and parents. And because public education is mostly funded by local and state property taxes, kids in low-income communities are forced to go to underfunded and failing schools.

And as a result these students don’t get the education that they need to be successful in life be ready for college or a vocational school, even if they make it out of high school. Which a lot of low-income kids in America never even make it out of high school and just repeat the cycle of poverty that their parents also repeated. 

Commonsense Capitalism: ‘Free to Choose- Are We Created Equal?’

Source:Common Sense Capitalism- conservative columnist Thomas Sowell, on Professor Milton Friedman's Free to Choose, in 1979-80. 

Source:The FreeState 

“Free to Choose Part 5: Created Equal Featuring Milton Friedman”  

From Common Sense Capitalism 

“Just” refers to an action justified under the circumstances. “Fair” refers to an action that treats people as they deserve to be treated. Many times, actions that are just are not fair. In hard cases, an action may be justified because there aren’t superior options, even if it’s results are unfair to at least some people.

If a madman holding a single hostage is going to blow up a school full of children, shooting him through the hostage may be just, but it isn’t fair to the hostage.

In addition, outcomes that aren’t the results of human action are neither just nor unjust. For example, a hurricane is neither just nor unjust. Yet a hurricane can be very unfair. One lazy person wins the lottery, another more deserving person does not. There’s nothing unjust about that, but it’s not fair.” 

From the English Stack Exchange

I believe the better word here instead of fair is just. There’s no such thing as a perfect world or utopia. You could create best system for life anywhere in the world and you’ll still have people who are better off than others. You still have people who have to deal with cancer, while others live completely healthy, with more money than they know what to do with.

We’ll never live in a perfect world as long as the world is dominated and controlled by humans, for the simple fact that humans have always been and will always be imperfect as a people. So it’s not a fair society that should be the goal here, but creating a just society that works for as many people as possible, regardless of race, ethnicity, or gender. And empowering as many people as possible to be able to have a real opportunity to live as freely as possible, short of hurting any innocent person with what they’re doing and holding everyone accountable for their own decisions that they make.

No one in world is better than anyone else based on their race, ethnicity, or gender. We’re all born equal based on what our race, ethnicity, or gender is in life. It’s what we do with the opportunities that we have in life that determines how much better off we are in life and how we use our intelligence, abilities, and talents, that determines how we do in life.

So some people are better off than others not because of their physical identity, but because of what they do with the opportunities that they were given in life and how they apply their talents and abilities.