I have not been able to find anyone who knows what "fair share" means. When a strong man comes into my house and takes anything he wants, is that my fair share? If I am forced under penalty of punishment to hand over any or all of my property, is that my fair share? When a master decides how much of my income he wants for his own personal use, is that my fair share? When "fair share" is a moving target that can be increased by the will of powerful people, can it ever be defined?
If I have absolutely no part in deciding the criteria defining "needy" and no decision-making authority in identifying those who meet that criteria, nor any say in defining how much they should receive to satisfy their need, how can my fair share be determined? Beyond that, if my "fair share" leaves me eligible to meet the criteria for "needy" while someone else's "fair share" still leaves that person eligible to live an opulent life-style, can "fair share" really be calculated fairly? Until we start thinking of life-quality and value in terms other that mere currency we will never be able to reach definitive answers to those questions.
You see, our values are inverted. I saw a post the other day showing a picture of eggs in an eagle's nest next to a picture of an unborn human child. The picture informed us the eggs of the eagle are protected by laws against destroying those eggs; but the human unborn child is free game for killing. Death can come with the choice of only one person...the child's mother. What is the Mother's "fair share?"; what is the child's "fair share?"
With inverted values everything is unfair, nothing is sacred and no one can define "fair share."