What is Social Justice?

"Social Justice is a term you hear almost every day. But did you ever hear anybody define what it actually means? Jonah Goldberg of the American Enterprise Institute tries to pin this catchall phrase to the wall. In doing so, he exposes the not-so-hidden agenda of those who use it. What sounds so caring and noble turns out to be something very different."

http://www.richmondteaparty.com/what-is-social-justice-prager-university/

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Friedrich_Hayek

gotta love a biased, self serving op-ed piece using out of context, singularly selected paragraphs (3) from a 150 page UN document produced by the UN in 2006 to discern their role in economic development ( http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/documents/ifsd/SocialJustice.pdf) which was, by the way, produced by a gaggle of foreign nationals from data 10 years olde.

the commentary flying under the term quote university unquote banner which is not any type of academic institution whatsoever and is using the term to present some 'legitimacy' to their rhetoric is a nice touch.

oh and the AEI's board of directors is solely comprised of those industrialist who i am sure are currently the 1% holding the nation's wealth.

sorry best i can see Goldberg's only claim to fame is riding his mother's coat tails through tripp and monica.

not to disparage the poster or their effort, but glad to see Hannum's theorem is alive and well.

this cite at least presents a balanced presentation of the term as it even discusses the UN report and what it was striving to relay: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice

ipse

Grapeshot said:

"Social Justice is a term you hear almost every day. But did you ever hear anybody define what it actually means? Jonah Goldberg of the American Enterprise Institute tries to pin this catchall phrase to the wall. In doing so, he exposes the not-so-hidden agenda of those who use it. What sounds so caring and noble turns out to be something very different."

http://www.richmondteaparty.com/what-is-social-justice-prager-university/

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Friedrich_Hayek

Click to expand...

...social justice

Accepting the premise, debating a definition...

Some good points.

Social Contract is similar. That would be the supposedly obligation to the state to enforce social justice.

I thought social justice was the demand that those who have made good choices, worked hard and become successful accept responsibility for others who refuse to take responsibility for not making good choices, not working as hard and therefore not becoming successful.

deepdiver said:

I thought social justice was the demand that those who have made good choices, worked hard and become successful accept responsibility for others who refuse to take responsibility for not making good choices, not working as hard and therefore not becoming successful.

Click to expand...

Of course its in your social contract.....

deepdiver said:

I thought social justice was the demand that those who have made good choices, worked hard and become successful accept responsibility for others who refuse to take responsibility for not making good choices, not working as hard and therefore not becoming successful.

Click to expand...

sudden valley gunner said:

Of course its in your social contract.....

Click to expand...

Consider, if you will for the moment, the social injustice in that. It isn't just for the not so ugly duckling anymore.

Social justice is those who haven't earned anything (whether that be wealth or respect) taking everything from those who earned it just because those who didn't earn it think it isn't... fair... for someone to have more than they do.

So re-reading this thread I am thinking that "social justice" is a just a pretty synonym for "mob justice".

sudden valley gunner said:

Of course its in your social contract.....

Click to expand...

OK. That was good one.



SECTION IX Social Responsibility

(B) We agreed, on your behalf, for you that you will take responsibility for those who made poor choices. We agreed your responsibility extends to contributing financially (taxation) to those who made poor choices.

(B.1) We also agreed on your behalf, that your responsibility for others extends to us taxing others to discourage behaviors we, at our sole discretion, deem objectionable. And, that we, at our sole discretion, can increase your taxes to pay for tax breaks for others to encourage behavior we deem beneficial.

(C) Our decisions, on your behalf, but against your wishes, are non-reviewable, and non-appealable. It just is. We will enforce it. We assert, without further justification, that we, and we alone, have sole discretion to decide your responsibility in these matters.

(D) We may, at our total discretion, arbitrarily and without a shred of logic, increase your responsibility and contribution to those who made poor choices and even those who didn't but were struck by circumstance. You hereby waive any claim that you too are suffering an unforeseeable circumstance and should thus be exempt; in fact, we waive such claim for you because if we didn't recognize it, you must be imagining it. Nothing herein constitutes an obligation on our part to reduce your responsibility, even when warranted. Furthermore, an omission on our part to regularly increase your contribution to those who made poor choices does not and can never constitute a waiver of our power to increase your responsibility later.

(E) We, on your behalf, attribute to you our opinion. You hereby agree (even if you don't) that when we generalize about which social obligations society supports, we include you in that society.

(F) Should any part of this social contract be found to be logically or morally unenforceable, it doesn't matter. Both the untenable part and everything else will remain in full force.



____________________________________________
(your signature) (date)



Disclosure 1: Don't bother signing. We intend to enforce it whether you sign or not, whether you agree or not.

Citizen said:

OK. That was good one.



SECTION IX Social Responsibility

(B) We agreed for you that you will take responsibility for those who made poor choices. We agreed your responsibility extends to contributing financially (taxation) to those who made poor choices.

(C) Our decision, on your behalf, but against your wishes, is non-reviewable, and non-appealable. It just is. We will enforce it. We assert, without further justification, that we, and we alone, have sole discretion to decide your responsibility in these matters.

(D) We may, at our total discretion, arbitrarily and without a shred of logic, increase your responsibility and contribution to those who made poor choices and even those who didn't but were struck by circumstance. Nothing herein constitutes an obligation on our part to reduce your responsibility, even when warranted. Furthermore, an omission on our part to regularly increase your contribution to those who made poor choices does not and can never constitute a waiver of our power to increase your responsibility later.

(E) Should any part of this social contract be found to be logically or morally unenforceable, it doesn't matter. Both the untenable part and everything else will remain in full force.



____________________________________________
(your signature) (date)



Disclosure 1: Don't bother signing. We intend to enforce it whether you sign or not, whether you agree or not.

Click to expand...

+1

Citizen said:

OK. That was good one.



SECTION IX Social Responsibility

(B) We agreed, on your behalf, for you that you will take responsibility for those who made poor choices. We agreed your responsibility extends to contributing financially (taxation) to those who made poor choices.

(B.1) We also agreed on your behalf, that your responsibility for others extends to us taxing others to discourage behaviors we, at our sole discretion, deem objectionable. And, that we, at our sole discretion, can increase your taxes to pay for tax breaks for others to encourage behavior we deem beneficial.

(C) Our decisions, on your behalf, but against your wishes, are non-reviewable, and non-appealable. It just is. We will enforce it. We assert, without further justification, that we, and we alone, have sole discretion to decide your responsibility in these matters.

(D) We may, at our total discretion, arbitrarily and without a shred of logic, increase your responsibility and contribution to those who made poor choices and even those who didn't but were struck by circumstance. You hereby waive any claim that you too are suffering an unforeseeable circumstance and should thus be exempt; in fact, we waive such claim for you because if we didn't recognize it, you must be imagining it. Nothing herein constitutes an obligation on our part to reduce your responsibility, even when warranted. Furthermore, an omission on our part to regularly increase your contribution to those who made poor choices does not and can never constitute a waiver of our power to increase your responsibility later.

(E) We, on your behalf, attribute to you our opinion. You hereby agree (even if you don't) that when we generalize about which social obligations society supports, we include you in that society.

(F) Should any part of this social contract be found to be logically or morally unenforceable, it doesn't matter. Both the untenable part and everything else will remain in full force.



____________________________________________
(your signature) (date)



Disclosure 1: Don't bother signing. We intend to enforce it whether you sign or not, whether you agree or not.

Click to expand...

LOL.....We should viral that if we can!

Good video.

I like the line about social justice being "good things nobody needs to argue for; and that nobody dares to argue against."

It seems a similar thing might be said about the very term "social justice": "A term so offensive and extreme that nobody needs argue against it; and nobody dare argue for anything associated with it."

I oppose the policies of wealth redistribution and the notion that those of lessor abilities, who work less, or who make bad choices are entitled to the fruits of the labors of those who do the right things.

I'm also reminded of something I think I saw attributed to Clint Eastwood to the effect that, "The problem with extremism is it all ends up in the same place. You start to meet the same nuts coming around from the left as you do from the right." I would add the same nuts coming over the top from anarchy.

Clearly, self reliance should be encouraged and rewarded. Private charity is the ideal when help is needed.

But I've also come to be personally aware of cases where the choice seems to be either a miserable, destitute life for an individual born with severe disabilities and his family, or a much broader pool to assist than most families, neighborhoods, or churches can muster. I believe there is a limited place for taxpayer funded welfare. And perhaps in the process of cutting back on the excesses that exist in the current social services budget, we'd gain enough experience to convince me that even the most extreme cases could and should be handled entirely by private charity. But until then, I've gotten just enough glimpses into my own mortality and world around me to realize that there is a place is a civilized, decent society for both respect of property and some legal obligation to provide some assistance to the truly needy.

The same Bible that prohibits theft, permits the poor to earn some daily bread by gleaning the fields. IOW, while the owner of the field has rights to the first fruit, he has an obligation not to pick it entirely clean lest there be nothing to glean.

I will speak heresy of the "all men are equal" mantra when I observe that some of our fellows are simply too stupid, too short sighted to save for retirement, to pay for medical insurance, etc. Yes, many could be encouraged to do better were they more exposed to the consequences of their bad decisions. But there are limits to ow much exposure that we should be willing to tolerate. Do we want to see stupid young men dying in the streets because they bought bullet bikes but "couldn't afford" proper medical insurance? How many elderly do we want to see destitute because they just never felt they had enough to save and live longer than they can work?

Lots of problems with the current welfare system, no doubt. And maybe Ayn Rand and her disciples are a necessary counter-balance to that. But I recognize them as a counter-balance to bring the pendulum back to where it belongs rather than as any gospel I really want to live.

As members of society, we do have obligations to each other. Exactly how those should be fulfilled, the extent to which law should require vs conscience compelling is a fine debate. But it is a complicated debate, not one to be settled simply with grand pronouncements of letting the stupid or unlucky suffer their fate.

Charles

LOL...being left alone to peacefully and voluntarily exchange with others is nutty and extremist......

sudden valley gunner said:

LOL...being left alone to peacefully and voluntarily exchange with others is nutty and extremist......

Click to expand...

Yeah, but notice he thinks we anarcho-nuts are coming over the top! Full-scale assault--we forded the moat, scaled the walls with ladders, and the battlements are almost ours! :monkey

In his mind, probably to "impose" peaceful voluntary exchange on him at halberd point.

Dishonesty and deceit from bumper sticker logic.

Citizen said:

Yeah, but notice he thinks we anarcho-nuts are coming over the top! Full-scale assault--we forded the moat, scaled the walls with ladders, and the battlements are almost ours! :monkey

In his mind, probably to "impose" peaceful voluntary exchange on him at halberd point.

Click to expand...

More and more people are realizing they don't have to worship at the alter of the state. These heretics scare the statist. I find it amusing and not so coincidental that for one who claims to hate communism so much he exhibits much of the same tactics of You don't like the state you must be "nutty". Just glad this person who would break a finger for a gesture is not in a position of such absolute power.

See "What Social Classes Owe to Each Other" by William G. Sumner


Social justice is yet another government term created for the purpose of trying to "control" citizens.

My .02

CCJ

utbagpiper said:

Dishonesty and deceit from bumper sticker logic.

Click to expand...

That would make a good bumper sticker.
:lol:

sudden valley gunner said:

More and more people are realizing they don't have to worship at the alter of the state. These heretics scare the statist. I find it amusing and not so coincidental that for one who claims to hate communism so much he exhibits much of the same tactics of You don't like the state you must be "nutty". Just glad this person who would break a finger for a gesture is not in a position of such absolute power.

Click to expand...

You've got a point there--about heretics.

Your comment reminded me of Queen Mary Tudor--Bloody Mary. She was Catholic. After Henry VIII died, his teenage son Edward became king for a few years, dying at 15 or 16 of (tuberculosis?). Everybody knows Henry VIII took over control of the Catholic church in England. Fewer know that to suppress/erase opposition, he looted most of the abbeys (monestaries and nunneries). In English history its referred to as The Dissolution. Henry actually had many abbeys destroyed.

Whereas Henry VIII didn't care much for Protestants, his son Edward steered the state-controlled church toward Protestantism when he was king. And, he hated the Pope. Edward knew his older sister Mary, a Catholic, was next in line of succession, so when he realized he was mortally ill, he wrote his own will writing Mary, and maybe Elizabeth, out of the succession, handing the succession to Jane Grey and her "heirs male". (The Brits still have this document, written in school-boy hand.)

When Edward died, Jane Grey a teen herself and probably astounded, stepped up. But, within days Mary arrived to public acclaim, imprisoned Jane, and ascended the throne. Ultimately Mary had Jane executed. Things went well for about the first 6-9 months. But Mary wanted the country Catholic and intended to make it so. In her few short years (8?) as queen she burned between 270 and 300 people at the stake. Heresy. Toe the line of government control, or die. I'm a little foggy, but I think non-conformity was also punishable, though not with burning.

Under Mary the state literally enforced against heresy. Control. Control. Control.