I'm not taking a position on Arrington. I just object to the idea that legality implies fairness, by definition.

"Conformity with rules or standards" is an established meaning of "fairness"; to make any other judgement, as the poster a few levels above did, requires one to take a position on Arrington.

There are two places where one might take a position: "are the laws being fairly applied in this case?" and "are the laws themselves fair?".

Clearly it would be unfair to treat Arrington differently than the law requires. I think the charitable interpretation of the above poster is that he thinks the laws themselves are unfair. You may disagree, but arguing that what Arrington did is legal is beside the point.

I've already pointed out that if Arrington's complied with the tax rules and standards, his action have met one definition of fairness, which is not at all beside the point. To argue fairness or unfairness by other definitions, you have to take a position on those laws. Otherwise, you rule out such judgments, which leads us back to the question "did he play by the rules?"