> "Fairness for everyone" is the same as "forcing bad outcomes on the individual". I contest this unsupported assertion; you provide no argument to back it up.

> "Fairness for everyone" is the same as "forcing bad outcomes on the individual". I contest this unsupported assertion; you provide no argument to back it up. Ensuring a fair marketplace cannot cause "bad outcomes on the individual" for everybody, as this implies nobody benefits from fairness (a.k.a a law-regulated environment) (an everybody-lose situation simply doesn't make sense, otherwise anarchy would have taken hold centuries ago). > Group fairness doesn't trump individual liberties ... In your humble opinion. This is an ideological statement with no support. > What Ireland did with Apple is the same as a company hiring away developers from its competition ... Except that it's not the same, as the two are in no way equivalent: * the labour market is very different to the market for corporate domiciling * private companies have no necessity to exist; failure (consequent from labour market failure) is acceptable whereas a state's failure (or a diminished form, a state's failure to collect adequate tax revenues) is unacceptable * The market for corporate domiciling in the EU was regulated and there were regulations in place to prevent this action. There is usually no such regulation in employment law. So really, the two are not "the same" at all. > Does it hurt them? Sure This is in contradiction with your statement "doesn't trump individual liberties, as long as that ... doesn't harm someone else". In this case the poaching company is harming the target company, and so by your argument group fairness ought to trump individual liberties. On the one hand you argue for constrained liberty, and on the other you accept unconstrained liberty. The two aren't compatible on this simple a level.