What is Social Justice?

Citizen said:

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.

Click to expand...

Yep. They all still even Mary needed to have the illusion of ruling divinely or by consent to some degree. Just look at how some of the rituals are treated as sacred today like voting.

sudden valley gunner said:

Yep. They all still even Mary needed to have the illusion of ruling divinely or by consent to some degree. Just look at how some of the rituals are treated as sacred today like voting.

Click to expand...

WHOA!!! I hadn't thought of that at all! But, you're absolutely correct.

There are four elements or characteristics the monarch-to-be must satisfy before becoming officially king or queen of England. I'll list last the one most relevant to your point.

1. Legitimate birth (married parents) in line of succession or having a legitimate claim via royal bloodline.

2. Chosen by God (demonstrated by the church anointing the sovereign at the coronation)

3. A coronation--public ceremony with all the oaths administered and so forth.

4. Public acclaim.

Huh? Public acclaim? Yep. That's your consent right there.

ETA: Deleted erroneous (wrong) information.

Regarding divine right, Charles I was the last king of England to pull that stunt. Divine right died when he was beheaded in 1648-49. He actually made this argument (paraphrase): "Yes, I am bound by the law; but no man can hold me accountable for violating the law. I am accountable only to God." He was basically using the "chosen by God" idea and the anointing ceremony. Of course, Parliament was having none of it. Charles' real problem was his abuse of power and running roughshod over Parliament. Well, that, and starting a second civil war from house arrest. Oliver Cromwell and the leaders of Parliament had him under house arrest after the first civil war. They just wanted to rope him in, not kill him, but the idiot sent letters to royalist forces encouraging them to group again and fight again. When Parliament found out about his instigation, they decided he had to go. His trial was a show trial--they had already decided he was going to die. Something like 6% of the English population died in the two back-to-back civil wars.

As far as I know, Charles I was the last king of England to use the God excuse for his perpetrations. Well, his crimes against the law and Parliament, anyway. There's still the whole sovereignty thing whereby power was, and still is, delegated from the monarch to the government against the average Joe. Even today, when a party wins the election, it choses a Prime Minister who then visits the queen. She asks him to form a government on her behalf. So, to that extent, "chosen by God" is still in play.

Regarding the ETA above.

I sincerely apologize. I gave y'all incorrect information about the transition from King John of Magna Carta fame to the next king. In the original post I said King John died and then Prince Louis was invited to rule England. This was wrong. The barons brought over Louis while John was still alive. I also said that Louis did not have public acclaim. This was wrong. He arrived to public acclaim from the residents of London.

If you read the post just above in its original version, its probably best to just disregard what I said about Prince Louis. I had occasion today to review again the source I was mis-remembering in that post. Boy, I was off-base. Some of my facts were just wrong.

Citizen said:

Regarding the ETA above.

I sincerely apologize. I gave y'all incorrect information about the transition from King John of Magna Carta fame to the next king. In the original post I said King John died and then Prince Louis was invited to rule England. This was wrong. The barons brought over Louis while John was still alive. I also said that Louis did not have public acclaim. This was wrong. He arrived to public acclaim from the residents of London.

If you read the post just above in its original version, its probably best to just disregard what I said about Prince Louis. I had occasion today to review again the source I was mis-remembering in that post. Boy, I was off-base. Some of my facts were just wrong.

Click to expand...

What have you done with Citizen?

We demand his immediate release! :lol:

[h=1]“But let me offer you my definition of social justice: I keep what I earn and you keep what you earn. Do you disagree? Well then tell me how much of what I earn belongs to you - and why?” Walter E. Williams[/h]

sudden valley gunner said:

[h=1]“But let me offer you my definition of social justice: I keep what I earn and you keep what you earn. Do you disagree? Well then tell me how much of what I earn belongs to you - and why?” Walter E. Williams[/h]

Click to expand...

+1

It's all philosophy. The idea of 'social justice' predates Classical Liberalism. Predates the Roman Empire. It also predates the pre-Socratics. People have been arguing about social justice... forever.

Which means in any given room, half the people are blind liberals, half the people are blind conservatives, and the 3rd half won't care one way or the other. And the majority of all 3 halves are too stupid to understand the base rules for philosophical debate. In the end, about .001% of people in the room actually know what the heck they are talking about, and know the futility of trying to educate the before mentioned 3 halves -- so they drink beer and watch the insanity.

Ahhh social justice. I'm sure the Classical Liberals, Neo-cons, leftists, communists and anarchists are all going to get in a room figure it all out someday.

And as we all know, every person operates 100% on their own power hungry biases, until their petty desires are held in check by forces outside their control. Which makes for an interesting political outcome, when both liberal and conservative politicians are owned by the same multinational corporations.

sudden valley gunner said:

[h=1]“But let me offer you my definition of social justice: I keep what I earn and you keep what you earn. Do you disagree? Well then tell me how much of what I earn belongs to you - and why?” Walter E. Williams[/h]

Click to expand...

That's just arguing for "Justice in acquisition, justice in holding."

What about the positive Right to charity?

Walter, if I'm poor broke and hungry then all your surplus food belongs to me .

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...

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-30659528

More folks need to learn that WE do not NEED the police.

The police NEED us, of they have to find a real job.

Stuff like a falling crime rate, during an illegal (crybaby) LEO protest in NYC, might help people figure that out.

utbagpiper said:

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.

Click to expand...

Why do oppose helping people with disabilities, who are in need of help?



Seems callous.

Dave_pro2a said:

Why do oppose helping people with disabilities, who are in need of help?

Seems callous.

Click to expand...

No. It seems like you are looking to troll rather than engage in sincere discussion.

Dave_pro2a said:

2) The uneducated and the disingenuous are two types of people who often use partial quotes to try and prove their point. One from ignorance, the other from maliciousness.

Click to expand...

You've already made very strong assertions that you are not uneducated. It is clear you fancy yourself part of the 0.001% (1 in 1,000 or one of only about 320,000 persons in the entire nation) smart enough to understand politics.

By your own words, that leaves only disingenuous operating from a position of maliciousness.

My position is not philosophical pure by any political philosophy. But for those who missed it or might think your disingenuous out-of-context quote of my words are accurate, let me be clear and brief:

utbagpiper said:

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.

....

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.

Click to expand...

[new underlined emphases added]

Deliberate trolling does nothing to advance RKBA or OC, nor to elevate the level of discussion in the forum.

Stop doing it. Try the ignore button if my very presence so offends your sensibilities to the point that you feel compelled to respond with either trolling, snarkiness, sniping, personal insults, or any other non-productive form of communication.

Charles

utbagpiper said:

Try the ignore button if my very presence so offends your sensibilities

Click to expand...

So, you do know about the ignore button.

Nightmare said:

Walter E. Williams has many more good lessons, all deserving of more attention than a scant "+1"

http://www.amazon.com/Walter-E.-Williams/e/B001H6W1VW

Click to expand...

+1

sudden valley gunner said:

+1

Click to expand...

Nightmare said:

Unfortunately quoting defeats the ignore feature.

Click to expand...

It is much like a professor grading a paper. +1 is similar to an A+........a stamp of endorsement/approval.

I'd rather see a dozen +1's than a single wall of text supporting my position.

Grapeshot said:

It is much like a professor grading a paper. +1 is similar to an A+........a stamp of endorsement/approval.

I'd rather see a dozen +1's than a single wall of text supporting my position.

Click to expand...

+1 .......haha......yes sometimes I'm just a goof. Seriously though +1