When hearing a number of liberal friends this week talking about “social justice,” it seemed they were trying to dress up their liberal political agenda in religious terms. They talked about the need to help the less fortunate, but seem convinced that only state programs could provide the necessary assistance.
Thinking about such things, I recalled that Dr. Helen had posted on the topic when reading F.A. Hayek’s book Law, Legislation and Liberty, Volume 2: The Mirage of Social Justice. Said blogmistress. . .
. . . never felt comfortable around academics who throw out the word “social justice” because it always seems restrictive and self-serving. Once I hear a group of social “scientists” employing the term, it generally means that are looking for reasons to favor some groups (almost always Democratic constituents), while excluding others.
So, she sees the left-wing ideal of social justice as a particular form of statism, asking whether “the current form of ‘social justice’ with its emphasis on government force for some special interest groups but not for others really justice?” She has a different notion of social justice. Just read the whole thing to find out what it is.
Social justice… what does that even mean? The only people I see benefitting from social justice are those lining their pockets.
Today, I read of a church in Charlotte being fined for pruning its own trees and the mayor of a small town in Alabama that was hit by a tornado forbidding citizens whose homes were destroyed living in FEMA trailers due to building codes.
Increasing government means increasing tyranny.
The bigger the government is, the less genuine social justice is possible.
Bigger government means higher stakes for power, which means bigger money necessary to buy power. This cuts out the sainted poor and working classes even more than limited government ever could.
It should be no surprise that the Obama administration — the biggest viper’s nest of profiteers since the Great Depression — is pushing “social justice.” They stand to make out like bandits on the boondoggles they’re encouraging America to buy into.
Social justice is Socialism; therefore, it is for a centralized government. President Obama would like to be either King Obama or Dictator Obama.
“…the notion of “rights” is a mere term of entitlement, indicative of a claim for any possible desirable good, no matter how important or trivial, abstract or tangible, recent or ancient. It is merely an assertion of desire, and a declaration of intention to use the language of rights to acquire said desire.
In fact, since the program of social justice inevitably involves claims for government provision of goods, paid for through the efforts of others, the term actually refers to an intention to use force to acquire one’s desires. Not to earn desirable goods by rational thought and action, production and voluntary exchange, but to go in there and forcibly take goods from those who can supply them!” Ben O’Neill, Mises Institute.
Ok, I’ll bite. What does “social” mean. And when you get that argued out, what does “justice” mean. And when the dust settles on that, what does “social + justice” mean. Also, what about “unsocial” or “asocial” justice for introverts?
Now, boys and girls, we are going to address the problems of “social justice” for illegal aliens who identify with gangs for solidarity, protection and a sense of pride. After that, we will take up “social justice” for STD positive hookers who enjoy the life style and are saving up for a new pick-up truck which will enhance both their business and their class status.
Levi, Cas, anyone, anyone, anyone.
Social justice requires thought based on compassion and emotions. In my opinion, it is always a bad idea to think that way. What do I owe to someone who made terrible decisions and as a result is poor and can’t afford shelter or food? If people want to help people like that, that’s fine. But I have no responsibility for them, or anyone else for that matter. Nor does the government.
To the extent that “social justice” has become nothing but code for (Godless or gov’t-is-god) socialism, then I have to join with Glenn Beck and say I believe in equal justice, not social justice.
I don’t believe, though, that the traditional values and mores that once guided our culture had to be torn down in order to create or expand equal justice. I don’t measure justice by the ease with which abberrant sex or lifestyle groups can express themselves. I don’t believe support for traditional marriage makes for an unjust society. I don’t believe that not endorsing homosexuality makes for an unjust society. I don’t believe protecting the unborn makes for an unjust society. I don’t believe outlawing hard drugs makes for an unjust society. And I have those views because I’m a conservative and I DON’T SUBSCRIBE TO THE SOCIO-POLITICAL CONSTRUCT OF THE LEFT.
Got it?
“Social Justice” is just another term for stealing.
” ‘Social Justice’ is just another term for stealing.” Or for getting even.
In a word: YES. #8 & 9 are spot on.
No, the opposite: it means decreasing the size of government.
It means that society is set up so that people are treated justly. For example, that people’s rights to life, liberty and property are respected; people keep what they earn/save; no one – neither poor nor rich, neither capable nor incapable, neither male nor female, white nor black, neither the foolish nor the prudent – is treated as the slave of another.
Only because we have let it be. Only because not enough people have stood up against the deliberate perversions of the concepts (that would otherwise be meaningful) of rights, justice, etc. that have been pushed relentlessly by the Left.
Again, only because we have let it be.
I think one of the problems with social justice is that we all have different opinions of what social justice should be, in addition to how we should or should not go about it. Even Seane-Anna, who appears to be against social justice, at the same time demonstrates her views on what social justice should be.
One of the religious orders of the Roman Catholic Church I am familiar with is big on social justice. I’m not sure what role they want government to play. But they do what they can to effect changes in social justice.
Pat,
With all due respect, may I clarify your #12 with clearer language?
You wrote: “I think one of the problems with social justice is that we all have different opinions of what social justice should be, in addition to how we should or should not go about it.”
Perhaps you meant to write: 10,000 people have 10,000 different meanings of what constitutes “social justice” for each of them and they are not the least bit interested in you getting your “social justice” until each of them has his “social justice taken care of first.”
Then you write this: “Even Seane-Anna, who appears to be against social justice, at the same time demonstrates her views on what social justice should be.”
But, Pat, how can Seane-Anna “appear” to be against social justice? We have not established what constitutes “social justice” and therefore, if Seane-Anna “appears” to be to be against “social justice” it would “appear” that Seane-Anna is against Pat’s concept (unstated) of “social justice” and not any established concept of “social justice.” Oh, my.
Then Pat writes: “One of the religious orders of the Roman Catholic Church I am familiar with is big on social justice. I’m not sure what role they want government to play. But they do what they can to effect changes in social justice.”
Pat is declaring that the Roman Catholic Church has at least one order that has worked out a “social justice” definition. Until the Pope writes the “social justice” decree, that one order is no more than a pebble on the beach.
Pat, you had it right in your first remark. There is no working common concept of “social justice” and that means we have no way of systematically going about achieving the amorphous goal which can not be stated.
Liberals, socialists and communists all include the redistribution of wealth (taking from the rich and giving to the poor) in their version of “social justice.” It would seem to me we that are about to have a vigorous campaign on whether the 47% who pay no income tax can raise the tax bills on those who do.
I would dearly love to see you step out of your rather circular statement and clarify your own definition of “social justice.” After all, if you favor the government imposing it on me, you at least owe me the courtesy of declaring what you wish to send my way.
“Social Justice” is the cry of the peasants as they burn down your house and fields. steal your furniture and cattle, rape your wife and children, expropriate your business and bank account, and shove you against the wall to be shot.
Catholics believe Jesus taught that on the Day of Judgement God will ask what each person did to help the poor and needy: “Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.” The Catholic Church believes that through words, prayers and deeds one must show solidarity with, and compassion for, the poor. The moral test of any society is “how it treats its most vulnerable members. The poor have the most urgent moral claim on the conscience of the nation. People are called to look at public policy decisions in terms of how they affect the poor.”
Perhaps you meant to write: 10,000 people have 10,000 different meanings of what constitutes “social justice” for each of them and they are not the least bit interested in you getting your “social justice” until each of them has his “social justice taken care of first.”
Heliotrope, that’s close to what I meant.
But, Pat, how can Seane-Anna “appear” to be against social justice? We have not established what constitutes “social justice” and therefore, if Seane-Anna “appears” to be to be against “social justice” it would “appear” that Seane-Anna is against Pat’s concept (unstated) of “social justice” and not any established concept of “social justice.” Oh, my.
When Seane-Anna writes
9.” ‘Social Justice’ is just another term for stealing.” Or for getting even. ,
I took it to mean that she opposes social justice. Now maybe she meant to say that she is opposed to what she perceives the current meaning of social justice is. But whatever the case, she outlines her views, which is simply her version of social justice. For example, she is advocated protection for the unborn, which is fine. But is this something that she wants government to get involved in? Who knows? And I figure that Seane-Anna would opposed my concept of social justice. No biggie.
Pat is declaring that the Roman Catholic Church has at least one order that has worked out a “social justice” definition. Until the Pope writes the “social justice” decree, that one order is no more than a pebble on the beach.
We are in part agreement here. Howver, even if the Pope writes his social justice decree, it will still be no more “than a pebble on the beach.” At least in this country. Most Catholics seem to blow off much of what the Pope says anyway. His influence is quite limited here.
I would dearly love to see you step out of your rather circular statement and clarify your own definition of “social justice.” After all, if you favor the government imposing it on me, you at least owe me the courtesy of declaring what you wish to send my way.
Actually, I really didn’t mean to intend anything more than I wrote. I really don’t have any answers. It would seem fruitless to come up with a list of what social justice is, and have government impose it for all the reasons mentioned above. Heck, not all of the Ten Commandments have made it into our laws, and never will. The only pieces of social justice that make it will be ones that get popular support.
Catholics believe Jesus taught that on the Day of Judgement God will ask what each person did to help the poor and needy: “Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.” The Catholic Church believes that through words, prayers and deeds one must show solidarity with, and compassion for, the poor. The moral test of any society is “how it treats its most vulnerable members. The poor have the most urgent moral claim on the conscience of the nation. People are called to look at public policy decisions in terms of how they affect the poor.”
Comment by rusty — May 30, 2011 @ 2:14 pm – May 30, 2011″
Absent physical or mental handicaps social justice is for the poor to stop engaging in acts that lead to and continue poverty. In this country people of average intelligence and who are not handicapped stay poor due to their own actions over the long term. Best way to limit poverty is to stop subsidizing conduct and behavior that leads to poverty and the maintenance of poverty and rather help the truly unfortunate and needy.
Best way to limit poverty is to stop subsidizing conduct and behavior that leads to poverty and the maintenance of poverty
and we have gas companies reporting outstanding profits, and yet bruce posted that American families are paying over $164 more for gas every month. One wonders about the grocery bill and what $164 can get a family at the grocery store
and yes there are alot of folk who really can stand on their own two feet. but who is supposed to run around to make those judgements.
and we have gas companies reporting outstanding profits
Notice the automatic presumption that it is wrong to be profitable.
and yes there are alot of folk who really can stand on their own two feet. but who is supposed to run around to make those judgements.
Notice the immediate excuses and rationalization for those who can work and can be productive but choose not to do so.
And then my favorite that liberals always quote:
The moral test of any society is “how it treats its most vulnerable members.
Of course, the most vulnerable and helpless member of human society is the unborn or just-born child, and what do liberals do with those?
Kill over a million of them annually, including by snipping their spinal cords just after birth.
It’s amazing. Rusty and his fellow gay and lesbian ilk insist that those who refuse to work have an absolute moral claim on everyone else’s output, but then advocate and demand that the government fund the killing of babies because their parents allegedly can’t afford to support them.
That’ s right Miss Rita Beads! U Go Girl
21. “That’ s right Miss Rita Beads! U Go Girl”
Right. Whatever the hell that means. I suppose channeling Ru Paul or whoever makes you more credible in somebody’s universe, but I don’t think it will in this one.
On the Last Day, Jesus may also ask whether we’ve stolen from other people. If we’ve actively advocated and voted for “progressive social justice,” then we have. Leftist “social justice” is based on armed theft.
I suppose a few more silly comments may obscure this further.
Sounds voluntary, when you put it like that.
Unfortunately, and in partial answer to Pat and others: various Popes have published encyclicals in which they make clear that they support *the use of force* to “re-distribute” in supposed help of the poor. Also in past eras, they supported the use of force to maintain Church estates.
Taking from your neighbor by force is never socially just. Never, ever – not even when the government does it legally and with the Pope’s blessing.
Well said, and part of why (above) I talked about Popes who support coercion “in -supposed- help of the poor”. Even when the coercively “re-distributed” money makes it to the poor, which is actually not that often, it is often spent in ways that further weaken (i.e. harm) the recipients.
And your solution to that ‘problem’, rusty, is what? That they shouldn’t make profits? Or that they should be strictly limited to some amount that you find seemly? (What would that amount be, btw?) Try such a policy and see how much gas gets produced under it. Oh wait, they already tried it in the old Soviet Union. It didn’t work.
Then get out there and help them. I’ll even give you some money. But don’t expect to take it from me by government (i.e. by force), and then have me pretend for you that that is somehow just.
LH – I suppose channeling Ru Paul or whoever makes you more credible in somebody’s universe, but I don’t think it will in this one.
actually just commenting on Dan (NDXXX) alter Miss Rita Beads
The reason Rita Beads is such a funny name is probably sadly lost to most of you, but the threat to “read your beads” was a common expression back in the day, one homo to another. Reading someone’s beads meant to tell them off, to give them what-for, to put them in the their place, in the sort of high-drama that only can come from a place of great creativity and style. And cuntiness.
“Don’t make me read your beads, bitch!” J Jervis
I just comment on NDXXX little transitions to his alter: Miss Beads, when she likes to go off (into her own little universe)
You have even seen it Lori
And your solution to that ‘problem’, rusty, is what ?
don’t know. . .
Well I do. Not saying that as if it makes me better or anything; only that I have a definite proposal, which I put out there after having applied it with some success in my own life.
P.S. My proposal is this: That we let them produce the gas or whatever the product/service is, and let them make a profit at it.
They know how to do it, I don’t. (Specialization of Labor)
The bigger the profit, the more they will do it and the cheaper gas will be in the long run. (Profit Motive; Price signalling the need for greater production)
It’s up to me to figure out what I am willing and able to produce, in trade for their product or service. (Specialization of Labor; Individual Initiative)
If I can’t, I still have a network of relationships. Maybe my relationship partners can do it, and maybe I can pay my relationship partners in some other way. (Specialization of Labor; Trade; Friendship and Community, which using force on people violates)
In a 200 page, 100,000 word Compendium, the RC Church laid out its “social doctrine” in 2004, based on 125 years of developing papal thought on family, work, economy, politics, environment, peace, etc. To oversimplify, it tries to steer between capitalism and socialism.
Very highminded. “Social justice” is a huge buzzword in Catholic circles, along with the duo “justice and peace”…(especially among priests and nuns)…which to me usually means socialism and appeasement. Just FYI.
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html
Part of the RCC’s problem is they operate with a first-century sense of economics. Wealth falls from the sky (Manna from Heaven). There is only a fixed amount (poverty thinking). The tribe is all (collectivism). If someone has more than you, it’s unfair, except of course the tribal leader gets to exact punitive taxes taxes and have lots (feudalism; authoritarianism).
All those premises are false. Wealth is created by human beings. The amount of wealth is whatever human creativity can make it; the pie can always be expanded. A civilized society puts the rights of the individual, including property rights, above the tribe. If someone has more than you (and if you really don’t like it), go out and make some.
Furthermore, ILC, going back to Constantine, the RCC has always been primarily a political animal. It is structured to extract taxes in the form of tithes and then redistribute the proceeds according to its own prerogatives. It is not structured to encourage the creation of wealth, only to facilitate its extraction and distribution; much like the Federal Behemoth. Those who operate the RCC are largely ignorant of economics beyond desiring to extract more; again, much like our Federal Behemoth.
A von Mises style critique of RC social teaching here: http://mises.org/pdf//asc/2002/asc8-woods.pdf
“The primary difficulty with much of what has fallen under the heading of Catholic social teaching since Pope Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum (1891) is that it assumes without argument that the force of human will suffices to resolve economic questions, and that reason and the conclusions of economic law can be safely neglected, even scorned.”
Woods tellingly remarks: “This attitude runs directly counter to the entire Catholic intellectual tradition, according to which man is to conform his actions to reality, rather than embarking on the hopeless and foolish task of forcing the world to conform to him and to his desires. This corpus of thought wishes to force reality into outcomes that cannot be realized by will alone.”
A bit off topic, but the captivity of modern Catholicism to Euro progressivism removes it from its longstanding attitude of dealing with the world as it is and falls in with the ungrounded utopianism driving the Western left.
EssEm, good one, thanks. Lots of choice quotes in just the first 4 pages… can’t wait to finish it.
“… proponents of [the left-wing, modern politics presently named] Catholic social teaching effectively deny the very existence of economic law. Their position therefore neglects altogether the role that reason must play in assessing the consequences of [their] policies…”
I say: if they truly cared about the poor, then they would look at the consequences of the policies they advocate. Since they don’t, they must not.