What Is ‘Social Justice’ Anyway?
During the recent Jewish holidays I heard one rabbi after another speak of “social justice.” Uttered with remarkable sincerity, this expression and its meaning elude me. I recognize justice as the adjudication of competing positions in a court of law and in accordance with the Constitution and its precedents. But what is social justice?
I’m not naïve. From Sharpton to Wright, social justice has come to mean redressing the wrongs of the past in the form of government benefits or reparations. The expression has a hint of retribution as in “you owe us.” In actuality, the words haven’t any real meaning. There are always those who grieve, and as long as the government attempts to satisfy those with a gripe, the plaintive cry for social justice will have irresistible appeal.
Justice is rarely social unless, of course, it is categorical as was the case with the Holocaust. In most instances justice is personal, e.g., seeking retribution for a contractual violation. Even if one were to attempt to redress the evil of slavery, how would one do so? Not every black person in the United States is a child of slavery. Moreover, people do not live in slavery — here at any rate — and race is not a barrier to success as President Obama and a host of corporate leaders demonstrate.
That the expression lives leads to confusion and discontent. There are principles on which the nation rests such as the rule of law, respect for private property, free expression, and individual rights. But social justice is not among them, albeit its radical antecedent ensures its place in the contemporary protest movement.
For many, social justice is a form of egalitarianism. Why, it is sometimes asked, should a few have so much and the many so little? This is the fairness gambit. Overlooked by acolytes of this position is that individualism on which this nation has put a premium is often at odds with economic equality. If people are free to pursue their goals, some are likely to be more successful than others.
Nobel laureate Friedrich Hayek destroyed the idea of “social justice” in The Fatal Conceit. Thomas Sowell has demolished it repeatedly, most memorably in The Vision Of The Anointed and The Quest For Cosmic Justice. Any decent semantician could tell you that the phrase is incapable of bearing an objective meaning. Why, then, are we unable to eradicate it from our discourse?
Simply, because of undeserved guilt. The white population of this country has been bludgeoned for nearly fifty years into believing that it must make amends for the crimes of others, including some that are the figments of racialists’ and Islamists’ fevered imaginations. Flacksters have succeeded in transmuting our natural sympathy for others not as well off into guilt over not having artificially hauled them up to our level. Incredibly, that often extends into exculpation for horrors such as black-on-white crime and jihadist terrorism.
It’s time we put an end to it — and delegitimizing anyone who mutters “social justice” in any forum would make a good start.
“Social justice” is just another instance of semantic manipulation – a shorthand formulation for Leninism, designed to dragoon the maximum number of useful idiots into its vast unwitting network. And then, once introduced by a certain number of shrill ahemts og influence, the host country’s own people – usually its most educated – afopt it in enough numbers to do Revolution to each other.
I detest the term social justice. The schools have attempted to brainwash my kids with it. I have quit going to my church because the pastors in the pulpit constantly preach about it.
Social justice to me is the right to be able to pursue your happiness as delineated by the Constitution. It is none of the guilt angst driven gobbleygook espoused by the left wing of America today.
If you believe in social injustice then you have to have a government cure. Equal justice before the law, equal opportunity just don’t work for me if I’m feeling lazy, keep making making dumb decisions or have a streak of bad luck. I know from my own experience that it’s always someone else’s fault. And I resent carrying a bag lunch when I see others living it up on an expense account. I don’t want to hear about other people being prepared to take advantage of opportunity, working hard when I was getting stoned, etc. That’s both annoying and depressing. And hateful. You all owe me. That’s why God created Saul Alinsky and Barack Hussein Obama, mmm, mmm, mmm.
Francis, the problem with the solution at the end of your posting requires that we figure out how to get rid of the cabal that has infested the topmost tiers of our government, media, and academia and who are rapidly moving to put into place the most draconian examples of oppression that the very worst purveyors of those ideals you denounce have ever conceived.
When the 2010 and 2012 elections duplicate the recent Iranian election results and consequences, I fear that only then will our people truly wake up to their peril….and at that point only a horrific and bloody armed insurrection will have the hope to be sufficient to return our nation to it’s people.
When you were listening to the Rabbis, it must have been the sincerity part that threw you. That probably sounds like a foreign language to someone like you:
I’m not naïve. From Sharpton to Wright, social justice has come to means redressing the wrongs of the past in the form of government benefits or reparations.
Um no…you know, this internet box is a wonderful thing. You type some words into it, and it tells you answers. Here’s what a normal vertebrate would have seen had they typed in “social justice”…
Social justice is the concept of a society with a greater degree of economic egalitarianism through progressive taxation, income redistribution, or even property redistribution, policies aimed toward achieving that which developmental economists refer to as equality of opportunity and equality of outcome.
It is not in fact a process of addressing past wrongs. It is a process of addressing present wrongs. Trying to tie it in to reparations just makes you look like an idiot. Er…I mean, it would make you look like an idiot if your audience wasn’t strictly idiots. Still, even they must from time to time read your stuff and shake their heads.
The 800 pound gorilla in a pink tutu in the room is that white progressives have used and are using Lenin’s strategy of engendering racial animus-disguised as social justice-in order to drive the so-called victims-blacks- toward more government control. For 60 years, white progressives have inculcated into the black psyche that only they can help them, give them reparations in the form of government assistance, and represent them in government.
That blacks have swallowed this hook, line and sinker has been both fatal to our republic and fratricde for blacks.
That progressive thinking white Americans(?) would tell other white Americans you don’t matter, you don’t deserve to go to college because a lesser qualified black does, you don’t deserve a job because of lesser qualified black does, that you don’t deserve a home because a lesser qualified black does is yet the greatest untold story of our generation. These white progressives do this while sitting firmly ensconced in their jobs in the HR Depts, college administrations, MSM, and government is truly amazing and at the same time utterly hypocritical.
The white population of this country has been bludgeoned for nearly fifty years into believing that it must make amends for the crimes of others, including some that are the figments of racialists’ and Islamists’ fevered imaginations.
Fifty years ago, they weren’t the crimes of others. White people were saying the same things thirty seconds after the end of Jim Crow. After nearly two hundred years of benefiting from the torture and slavery of black people, the day segregation was “officially” ended by the Civil Rights legislations, was the day white people were already tired of hearing lazy black people complain about the raw deal they got.
I denounce you. Skittle pooping unicorns for all!
“Social justice” is a very important concept and attempts to remedy the collective wrong done to victim classes in the past. If two evil white guys beat up a black guy because he is black, it’s a “hate crime;” it has nothing to do with “social justice.”
But, if a middle class black guy is stopped on the New Jersey Turnpike for actually driving at 87 miles per hour, it takes “social justice” to allow him to continue on his way with no penalty or cost, because he black.
Just more corruption of the language. “Justice” is a simple concept, really: You injured me; now you’re gonna get what’s coming to you. Call it legal revenge, vengence, who cares. But what it doesn’t mean is socialism.
Social justice is theft.
David, thanks for the Al Qaeda view.
Moho gave a pretty good definition of social justice at #6 (with apparent apologies to wikipedia).
If you are searching for social justice in the Constitution, just check the preamble; “Promote the general welfare” is a pretty good analog for “social justice”. And Congress is also empowered to enact taxes for the specific purpose of promoting the general welfare.
It’s really not that difficult a concept.
Peace.
DS
Imagine that moho entertaining us with his incipient insights on race. How enlightening. First off you racist, we are white Americans or the prejorative white progressives-not white people you black people.
“It is not in fact a process of addressing past wrongs. It is a process of addressing present wrongs. Trying to tie it in to reparations just makes you look like an idiot.” Wrong. Even you cherished white progrssive Sandra Day OConnore said that affirmative action must continue because of past wrongs. Reparations and social justice are one in the same. Even a dense person such as yourself would see that social justice (using your definition)is semantics for blacks getting a helping hand because of what was done to blacks 270 years ago; because what was done 270 years ago forms the bedrock for black grievence today which manifests itself as the inability of blacks to achieve anything without government help-to wit: affirmative action, welfare, institutionalized racism against white Americans,etc, etc.
‘social justice’ = grievance-group tyranny
‘economic justice’ = class-warfare looting
Both driven by the same bogus sense of entitlement used by aristocrats throughout history and ‘revolutionaries’ in the modern era to justify control and wealth confiscation.
Take a good, hard look at the charlatans and frauds at the forefront of today’s ‘human rights industry’, the poseur ‘men of the people’ with Swiss bank accounts running third world squats, or the gangsters posing as ‘statesmen’ at the Cirque de Merde on Turtle Bay.
If some people want to assuage their synthetic guilt by living on their knees before these sorts of imagined moral superiors, let ‘em pay for it themselves. Leave the rest of us out of it.
In other words, if someone thinks they’re entitled to what I’ve sweat to build, then send over a few of those romper-room revolutionaries from Black Bloc to take it from me the old fashioned way.
“I really don’t like you people.” says Moho.
David S, Moho likes you, however. Difficult concepts? Good one! Peace on you too, you smug, sanctimonious twit.
Social justice is social engineering, just with a better sounding name. The only social engineering that should take place is in our schools, which should teach basic American values including the philosophy behind our Republic and citizen rights & responsibilities, and link that to the American and World history. Unfortunately social justice seems to assume a failing educational system and then try to make corrections at every other point in our lives, Sotomeyer-style.
Properly understood, “social justice” is caritas in veritate, charity in truth, that is, love in truth. Man is, by his very nature, a social being, who is made by his Creator to love and be loved in truth. That means, as social beings, giving of yourself to others. But it also means, love being something that is, by its very nature, a free act, that such giving of self to and for others is done freely and voluntarily. And it means treating others in truth, especially the truth of the inherent dignity of the human person as a subject and free and equal being, and not as an object to be exploited and used as a thing. This is thoroughly compatible with free market classical liberalism (properly understood).
The problem is that this proper understanding of “social justice” has been hijacked and distorted and perverted by leftists and others to advance their own ideological/political ends. Rather than caritas in veritate, an exercise of love in truth, it has become an exercise of division and rancor, of pitting one group against another, us against them, of harboring grievances, getting even, going after others, and making sure that they get what’s coming to them.
Rather than Christianity in action, it is Marxism in action (or Maoism or Cheism or Sandinoism, etc.) (original-recipe or neo-). Rather than theology, it is liberation theology, Jesus as revolutionary.
Rather than freely giving of oneself for the benefit of others, it is forcibly taking from others and dividing the spoils.
It is the antithesis of true social justice.
That the expression lives leads to confusion and discontent. There are principles on which the nation rests such as the rule of law, respect for private property, free expression, and individual rights.
The term “social justice” has been hijacked and twisted and politicized and perverted by those who seek to advance their own political, ideological, power agenda. Many assert they merely want to create a heaven on earth, a kingdom of God here and now, but every experience has demonstrated that it is always a hell on earth.
But make no mistake, they have also sought to hijack and distort such terms as “rule of law,” “private property,” “free expression,” and “individual rights,” in addition to hijacking and distorting and perverting terms such as “family” and “marriage” and most of all “truth.”
DS: So “Promote the general welfare” is now the equivalent of social justice as defined by fellow moron moho: “Social justice is the concept of a society with a greater degree of economic egalitarianism through progressive taxation, income redistribution, or even property redistribution, policies aimed toward achieving that which developmental economists refer to as equality of opportunity and equality of outcome.”
Fine and I think you DS should give up your job-whatever it is you do-and ask your employer to give you position to a black. That would be true elgalitarianism which I assume you support. Don’t just come here with your twisted rhetoric supporting what you don’t do in real life.
Finally, if you and moho agree with that definition both you and moho must also take the mask of what progressivism is and be proud to be called fascists. Even communists believe in some limited property rights; and neither communism or socialism give a wit about equality of opporutnity. So it must be fascism. Where the government enforces everything for everybody.
What is Social Justice? Easy, it’s the name of Father Coughlin’s magazine, Social Justice, during this period, in which he printed The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, echoed Goebbels’ claim that Marxist atheism was a Jewish plot, advocated violence and legal restrictions against Jews in the US, and justified Nazi actions during Kristallnacht. Like Mojo said, the internet box is a wonderful thing.
And like nearly everyone else here has said, Social Justice is an attempt to put a pretty name on the politics of grievance and the justification for using legal and extra-legal violence to take wealth and property from a disfavored group. It’s not just taking it from white people and giving it to black people, though. It’s taking from whoever the villain group of the moment may be, whether Jews, whites, business people, small business owners, people whose pensions are invested in hedge funds — and giving it to those they supposed stole it from. For an early example, see Ber. (or if you prefer, Gen.) 26:12 – 22.
A wikipedia outline of ‘social justice’ is hardly a reliable and valid definition.
The term is ambiguous and thus has as many meanings as it has speakers and writers. It is used to refer to minority groups, gender issues, workplace issues, the environment, historical issues – whatever. The agenda seems to be to reduce differentiation and insert homogeneity.
As such, the term is essentially without meaning because the meaning has to be supplied by the author’s context.
To assert, as Wikipedia does, that a ‘just society’ is essentially economically homogeneous or ‘egalitarian’ and kept that way by government actions, (which is a socialist ideology), is economically disastrous.
A complex system, which is what our modern socioeconomic systems are, cannot be homogeneous but must be ‘far-from-equilibrium’ so to speak, or made up of diverse levels. Social and economic inequality must always exist. The robust society ensures that such gaps exist – the gaps must not be impassable – a member of one class must be able to move to another class (the strength of the American dream) – but, they must exist or the economy and the intellect grinds to a frozen halt.
To assert that the past must be redressed is utopian, for a current view of a past situation can never be accurate but is ‘tunnel vision’. Furthermore, other than intellectual acknowedgment of historic ‘unjust situations’ nothing more can be done, for there can be no proof that the past sitution caused the current one. Again, life is far too complex for such singular linear causal claims.
Equality of outcome. Period. (Then everybody can be happy, etc. Sure.)
“Social justice” is a stupid phrase. It sounds like means everybody has the right to be accepted by society or the right to move up in society.
The article at the following link is relevant to this discussion. http://hayekcenter.org/?p=1766 with additional links to http://blog.american.com/?p=6010 and
A striking comment is “The problem is that it [social justice\ ought to refer to a virtue.” This is like saying that a cesspool “ought to” smell like roses.
In fact, as a presentation by Michael Novak points out (see above links), “social justice” is really a euphemism for “something went wrong in my life, and I have to find someone else to blame”.
The term “social justice” is one of those fuzzy, sanctimonious one-size-fits-all rhetorical devices that is used by progressives to cut off argument and reinforce their own sense of virtue. Those above who have tried to define (and defend) the term use formulations that are indistinguishable from a definition of socialism. If that is what they mean they should simply say so. Why not simply say “I support socialism” rather than referring to the smoggy haze of “social justice?” Have the courage to say what you mean!
The “general welfare” clause has been used to way overstep the Constitutional limitations of of the Federal government. You and other socialists seem to forget this very explicit amendment in the Bill of Rights.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Welfare programs, Universal health care, etc. are all unconstitutional if enacted by the Federal Government. The States are free to do as they wish. Yes, I’d be willing to give up Medicare and SS if I was paid back what I’ve paid in with a reasonable amount of interest and no longer had to pay into either. It is not the government’s job to shield us from poor decisions, it is our responsibility to make good decisions. In the event of bad luck then it is the responsibility of family, friends, church, community, and then local government to help those who are victims of bad luck.
Howiem:
The problem with your view is that it mistakes personal outcomes for societal ones. When you can demonstrate that certain social groups have consistently poor outcomes in a society, then you can argue that there is some kind of injustice, or at least look for reasons. Yes, every person in that group may have differing outcomes due to personal choices, but when certain indices–unemployment, education, etc–are all lower than other groups, then there is a larger problem that is societal. The only other answer is that a group is inferior to others. If that’s your view, you should be up front about it.
Moho (8):
….After nearly two hundred years of benefiting from the torture and slavery of black people, the day segregation was “officially” ended by the Civil Rights legislations, was the day white people were already tired of hearing lazy black people complain about the raw deal they got.
First, Moho, what precisely do you mean by “white”? To my knowledge, neither I nor any of my ancestors owned slaves nor enslaved others nor participated in Jim Crowe laws. In fact, I had two ancestors that fought on the side of the Union Army to end slavery in the US. It is hardly justice to condemn an entire population because of the sins of a few.
Secondly, as far as I know all of the former slaves and slaveholders from that period are dead and are no longer eligable for reparations. Further more, if you look carefully the vast majority of those who participated in the trodding down of “blacks” under the Jim Crowe laws were Democrats in the South. There’s an entire half of the country further north that really doesn’t give a rat’s rear about the whole issue.
Finally, the issue isn’t “the raw deal that they got.” Everybody gets those from time to time. The raw deal has been addressed, laws have been passed, the question is what do they do now. Seems to me like the former slaves have, by and large, thrown away whatever equality of status they had earned in an effort to gain revenge and gain even more than what was rightfully theirs.
Sharpton and Jackson aren’t out for equality or rights, they’re out for vengence and gain. They don’t want blacks brought into the society as equals, they want to stomp down everybody else and come out on top as rulers.
David S (14):
If you are searching for social justice in the Constitution, just check the preamble; “Promote the general welfare” is a pretty good analog for “social justice”. And Congress is also empowered to enact taxes for the specific purpose of promoting the general welfare.
Wrong. There’s nothing in the Constitution, nor in the documents of the Founding Fathers, nor in any of the early history of the United States about “economic egalitarianism through progressive taxation, income redistribution, or even property redistribution.” “General Welfare” means national security, keeping of internal order, and ensuring that trade flows freely. The Federal Government is not authorized to redistribute income or property or to do more than necessary to ensure that equal opportunity is available to all through equal application of the laws.
“…but when certain indices–unemployment, education, etc–are all lower than other groups, then there is a larger problem that is societal. The only other answer is that a group is inferior to others.”
Wrong! Only a racist like you would make such an utterly ridiculous statement. If the indices point out that a group-blacks-are not performing, i.e., unemployment-rising, dropout rates-rising, illegitimacy rates-rising, gang membership-rising, fatherless children going to prison-rising, drug usage-rising, mysoginist attitudes-rising; it is not America’s, in general, nor white American’s, specifically, fault. It is the fault of black Americans and their racist slave owners the Dem party.
There is not one category in the above list that I nor any other American had anything to do with the cause or effect it is having on black Americans. I am sick and tired of black nationalist and black racists blaming me and other white Americans for the current state of despair in black America. That pox is on the house the Dems built and you live in.
Hey have you ever wondered why blacks, the most loyal sub-group that votes Dem, are suffering from these maladies? Have you ever wondered why it is blacks not Asians or really any other sub group needs affirmative action? Finally if you are really blaming white America for all the troubles of black Americans then you are blaming your most benevolent white progressives too like DS.
Social Justice is centralized redistribution of wealth and opportunity. That is it in a nutshell and anyone who sits sliently by as Rabbis and ministers pray for the oppression of communism on America should be ashamed of themselves. It is more a witch’s curse than a prayer.
Paul–>
You won’t have to work too hard to convince me that you don’t understand how the entire country benefited from Jim Crow and Slavery. The idea that creating a slave race of workers creates an artificially buoyant economy for those not enslaved, is hardly controversial or exceedingly difficult to understand. Again, as you are focused on whether or not your distant ancestors, rather than your parents, benefited from a two-tiered citizenship structure, means you aren’t likely to understand what I’m talking about.
No. 6 Moho: How can social justice consist of equality of opportunity AND equal distribution of wealth? Some have opportunity, but do not avail themselves. Others do, but ineficiently or without complete success. Social justice is just a catchphrase to disguise extortion from and control of others by a group who, hypocritically, need a veneer of justification for doing what armed robbers do.
How can social justice consist of equality of opportunity AND equal distribution of wealth?
Social Justice, in popular understanding, isn’t about perfect equality or income distribution. Its the idea of striving toward a more, but not perfect, distribution. Every President, Republican or Democrat has engaged in the rhetoric of social justice, you can see it in public education, the GI Bill, low-income mortgage help [the ownership society], etcetera. Under Bush it was known as Compassionate Conservatism. You want to disparage the idea now because you don’t like the messengers. But you’re prejudices are naked and obvious.
I always thought that “social justice” was simply one of those meaningless phrases that lefties toss out to disrupt discussions, but it turns out it does have a definition (Thoughtfully provided by Moho). Reading the definition, it turns out the phrase is actually negative rather than neutral, and exactly the type of Marxist/socialist garbage that one might expect.
He then tries (and fails) to justify it in #29, and is promptly disassembled by blotto. Sorry, Moho, saying “It’s all our racist society’s fault!” doesn’t fly.
And David S., here’s a definition of preamble:
“A preamble is an introductory statement or preliminary explanation as to the purpose of the document and the principles behind its philosophy.”
In other words, a preamble is statement that explains what the following document intends to accomplish. The preamble is the intent, the document is the “how-to”. The clause about the general welfare does not mean “to provide welfare checks”, as so many lefties insist.
As an Anthropology major I laugh ever time I hear the absurd concatenation of those two words “social” and “justice” – there’s simply no such thing anywhere in actual human culture, except in certain aspirational philosophical theories – which indicates that it’s a theological and religious proposition that has nothing to do with Society or Jurisprudence.
moho 34: You didn’t just write that did you? The structure, syntax, and clarity are way over your ability-as proven by your many previous posts. Are you saying that today’s black American is not better off than their counterpart in Africa? Are you saying that blacks in Africa were never taken as slaves by other races including other blacks? Rather than look at his ancestors and parents, are your parents still affected by slavery? Are you still affected by slavery? And just who did institute Jim Crow??
You moho are living in the past and it must be awfully painful. Besides being paid to post like DS, why are you here? I would expect a person of your character, filled with your hatred of all things good about America would want to be living in Cuba or do you???
You do realize that white progressives own you and all black Americans, right? You do realize that slavery never vanished; it is today’s entitlement programs which have once again enslaved blacks. The very ideology and people you defend and side with, are today’s slave masters. Ironic, eh??
“I don’t like you people.” says Moho.
I don’t make these quotes up like they do. Why is anyone engaging this entity? It’s an insult to chief stooge Moe Howard that this troll is using his hip hop name. This bozo isn’t even ShepHo.
Thomas 37: He’s fun! He and DS give me insights into the twisted thinking (or lack thereof) of progressives. Of course they get their talking points from Kos or CAP and are incapable of idependent thought, but still they are fun to walk around.
N&T is the real vile entitiy.
Read “The Israel Test” by George Gilder, and you will understand the pernicious nature of the vague concept referred to as “social justice”. And here’s a question to ask about whether such a concept has any merit. Who are its loudest proponents? The likes of Yasser Arafat, Jimmy Carter, and the United Nations Human Rights Council come to mind. When was the last time that anything even remotely connected to justice came from these sources? Chairman Mao and Josef Stalin believed in “social justice”, too. Just ask their victims.
Thomas, you’re a coward. This is the third time I’m defying you to explain what “you people” means in this context. You don’t have the guts to say so, preferring to linger on the innuendo of it. You have zero integrity.
You didn’t just write that did you? The structure, syntax, and clarity are way over your ability-as proven by your many previous posts.
The great thing about proof is that you can show it quite easily. You didn’t. LPOS, as per the author of this piece.
Could we perhaps cease and desist from the ad hominems in the comments here, and declare a moratorium on the “racist” canard? Jeez, this stuff gets tiresome! It reminds me of playground conversations… “You’re a racist!” “I am not! “Are too!” “Are not!” “Oh, yeah? Then prove it!” “Prove I’m not?!” “Yeah!” “Not what?!” “A racist!”
If you have something intelligent to say, then just say it and knock off all the personal baloney. Is this too much to ask? Or would that somehow abridge someone’s first amendment rights and make me a “racist”?
Shepho – You’re a name calling nincompoop. Feel better? Type away. I’m not looking now.
“Social justice” is code for “socialist justice”, peddled under “soft socialism.”
“Soft socialism” is what hard-core communists, maoists, leninists, stalinists and national socialists push on the useful idiots / liberal chatterati so they can more comfortably do the proselytizing from their Park Slope, UWS and San Fran brownstone, condos and co-ops.
When it’s “successful,” coke–sniffing libs can admin the ever–growing local and federal programs, get their friends with MSW’s in as managers, and they can all suck deeply on the taxpayer’s teats while doling out crumbs to the “affected class”.
What’s the longest continuously running American war?
Not Iraq, not Afghanistan, not even Ø’s war on Fox News.
No it’s the so-called “war on poverty” which even Daniel Patrick Moynihan, the Rabbi of Democrat Social Engineering realized was a COMPLETE failure, a project whose only success was to create multi-generational, single mom families, and welfare addicts who, tah-dah, brought us to the wonderful world of poverty pimps & corporate grifters like Jesse (I spit in your food, hymietown) Jackson and Al (Jewish diamond merchant white interlopers) Sharpton.
Who cares if it refers to “past” or “present” “inequalities”? America and the Judeo–Christian West’s future and real economic success is what “pays back” and forward to increase freedom and prosperity for all involved.
See anyone lately swimming TO Cuba, libs’ favorite island paradise and paragon of “social justice”?)
Next time your Rabbi mutters the phrase “social justice”, politely abuse him of the facts, and remind him that after they “socially justicize” your business and cut your revenues so low you can’t make your shul dues, “they” will be coming to review his sermons and his salary, to say nothing of his and your support for Israeli independence.
Or at least turn to your seat mate and mutter, sotto voce, “Bolsheviker narishkeit… pass it on…” (Bolshevik foolishness).
There is nothing new under the sun. Social justice, so-called, is about nothing more than “levelling”, a race to the lowest common denominator. The following was written by Soren Kierkegaard, circa 1845: (“The Present Age”)
“The present age is essentially a sensible, reflecting age, devoid of passion, flaring up in superficial, short-lived enthusiasm and prudentially relaxing in indolence. …whereas a passionate age accelerates, raises up, and overthrows, elevates and debases, a reflective apathetic age does the opposite, it stifles and impedes, it levels…. In antiquity the individual in the crowd had no significance whatsoever; the man of excellence stood for them all. The trend today is in the direction of mathematical equality, so that in all classes about so and so many uniformly make one individual…. For leveling to take place, a phantom must first be raised, the spirit of leveling, a monstrous abstraction, an all-encompassing something that is nothing, a mirage — and this phantom is the public…. The present age is essentially a sensible age, devoid of passion and therefore it has nullified the principle of contradiction.
“A Revolutionary Age is an age of action; the present age is an age of advertisement, or an age of publicity: nothing happens, but there is instant publicity about it. A revolt in the present age is the most unthinkable act of all; such a display of strength would confuse the calculating cleverness of the times. Nevertheless, some political virtuoso might achieve something nearly as great. He would write some manifesto or other which calls for a General Assembly in order to decide on a revolution, and he would write it so carefully that even the Censor himself would pass on it; and at the General Assembly he would manage to bring it about that the audience believed that it had actually rebelled, and then everyone would placidly go home — after they had spent a very nice evening out. An enormous grounding in scholarship is alien to the youth of today, in fact, they would find it laughable. Nevertheless, some scientific virtuoso might achieve something even greater. He would draw up some prospectus outlining systematically some all-embracing, all-explaining system that he was about to write, and he would manage to achieve the feat of convincing the reader (of the prospectus) that he had in fact read the entire system. The Age of Encyclopedists is gone, when with great pains men wrote large Folios; now we have an age of intellectual tourists, small little encyclopedists, who, here and there, deal with all sciences and all existence. And a genuine religious rejection of the world, followed with constant self-denial, is equally unthinkable among the youth of our time: nevertheless, some bible college student has the virtuosity to achieve something even greater. He could design some projected group or Society which aims to save those who are lost. The age of great achievers is gone, the present age is an age of anticipators. . . . Like a youth who plans to diligently study from September 1 for an exam, and in order to solidify his resolve takes a holiday for the entire month of August, such is our generation which has decided resolutely that the next generation will work very hard, and in order not to interfere with or delay the next generation, this generation diligently—goes to parties. However, there is one difference in this comparison: the youth understands that he is light-hearted, the present age is on the contrary very serious —even at their parties.
Action and passion is as absent in the present age as peril is absent from swimming in shallow waters. . . .”
Thomas L.
You seem to be admitting that I’m right–you have no integrity. You brought up an accusation–the idea that my use of the words “you people”–is somehow offensive. You can’t prove that, just like your colleague in intellect-deficiency Blotto can’t prove that somehow my “syntax” has changed. The most humorous part of that accusation was the absolute lack of syntax or any understanding of the term in the post accusing me of it. The next funniest thing was his statement “as proven by your many previous posts.” without providing any proof of my previous posts.
I used to think that it was the authors of these bogus, obtuse posts that were shining on you people. But now its become quite clear that the you have a tacit agreement to further this stupidity jointly.
In means giving tons of people a lot of government handouts by stealing cash from the rest of society. God forbid those people work hard to improve their own lives.
Real Fairness:
Unearned income such as inheritances need to be placed in a fund for distribution according to government guidelines. The manner of this division will be determined by the executive of that government agency.
Anyone who owns two homes needs to contribute one of them to a government body which, in turn, will place it in the hands of a caretaker who will live in it until the owner will decide to sell his other home(s). The proceeds of the sale of the primary home will be partially used to compensate the caretaker for loss of domicile.
Money earned by a family unit, but not spent by the end of the calendar year will be held in an escrow account until the individual who earned it can prove that he needs it for current living expenses. Guidelines to be established by a special government committee.
Those holding two or more jobs will be required to quit one of them if an unemployed person presents himself to the employer.
Care expenses incurred by children of parents who have reached their 70th birthday will no longer be permitted or alternatively will be taxed at a rate equal to the amount contributed to the upkeep of such individuals. Exceptions will be made if the person who has attained his 70th birthday still holds a position that pays a salary that includes health benefits.
All farmers will be required, in addition to their regular taxes, to tithe their crops and permit foraging and gleaning by people holding legal foraging and gleaning licenses issued by the government. Tithes will be contributed directly to the government for the care and feeding of its functionaries.
Charity contributions will be divided equally between a standard government charity fund and the charity selected by the giver. The giver may add his voice to how he would like the half contributed to the government be dispersed – a list of acceptable organizations will be provided.
Pet will have to be edible, so that in difficult circumstances these family members can contribute their lives to the upkeep of the family. Non-edible pets will become clean diesel fuel.
I’m guessing that many of the rabbis who instructed their congregations on “social justice” were Reform, and that they referred to the “social justice visions of the prophets” in doing so. When I see the Reform rabbinate do this I am presented with a perfect example of a disjuncture between speaking and thinking.
The prophets did indeed have a vision of social justice and in their case it wasn’t some vague term; it had a specific meaning. That meaning was rigid adherence to the Torah’s commandments, all of them. The prophets often also cautioned the people to put away foreign wives, which is at odds with the Reform movement’s views on intermarriage.
I am not, by the way, reaching a conclusion on Reform’s approach to intermarriage but rather citing a glaring example of a situation in which they claim Torah backing but in fact advocate policies diametrically opposite to the Torah’s teachings.
The thought process seems to be as follows: the prophets wanted social justice–this particular policy is social justice–therefore it’s based in the prophetic tradition. It’s not exactly the most profound analysis.
Mr. London, for decades we Catholics have been tortured with this “social justice” terminology, which, you are correct, means anything they want it to mean.
In Catholic circles, it is usually code for abortion support. It is used to justify snobbishly any dilution of pro-life activity — under color of “social justice” that is so prim and proper.
In recent years it has also become a code for “blame George Bush” — for pretty much anything.
Lazy brains think in stereotypes but “social justice” is not even a stereotype.
My condolences that it has attained currency with rabbis.
Mr. London, for decades we Catholics have been tortured with this “social justice” terminology, which, you are correct, means anything they want it to mean.
So you’re saying it means anything Catholics want it to mean? Or is they someone else?
– The government has attempted to legislate a form of egalitarianism through progressive taxation.
No. Let’s clear that one up. Progressive taxation is not an attempt to legislate egalitarianism. It is deceitfully SOLD TO THE ELECTORATE as an attempt to legislate egalitarianism. Year after year. Generation after generation.
In reality, progressive taxation is simply a tyranny of the majority (the not-wealthy) over a minority (the wealthy) that exploits democracy and ignorance (i.e., of capitalism and economics) simultaneously. Decades of progressive taxation have not led to universal prosperity, revealing that its sole outcome/purpose is to increase government revenue and, with it, government power.
“Social justice” is very simple. Let’s say that I am a teacher and at the end of the school year a few smart students have A, many have Bs and Cs, and a few have Ds. So, in order to be fair, I just make an average of the grades and give C+ to everybody. Social justice is the same concept, only applied to economics.
Social justice is hard to define, but I can think of a lot of things that were done under it that really aren’t negative. Ending child labor in factories was solely based on social justice, because it very much was (and still is, it seems) economically efficient to work kids 12 hour days on an assembly line if you can get them. Giving overtime protections and the 5 day workweek was as well.
I think we do need protections in order to keep the field if not level, at least not horrendously imbalanced. I disagree with extending social justice to promote spurious or pork-laden measures, but things like access to a good public education show that social justice has worth, and isn’t a figment of someone’s imagination.
So, in order to be fair, I just make an average of the grades and give C+ to everybody. Social justice is the same concept, only applied to economics.
No, its not, though considering that you must have been an F student, I can see why the metaphor appeals to you. It would be more like some of the students who had shown greater effort or improved would receive C’s an C+’s, instead of D’s and C’s.
Alex Bensky, your observations about the reform rabbinate’s selective use of Jewish sources brings to mind the accusation that someone was using statistics the way a drunk uses a lamppost- more for support than for illumination.
No Moho #58, in redistributive politics you always take from those who have more to give to those who have less, be it through force or progressive taxation. So in my example you would have to reduce the grade of the A students. Anyway, it’s impossible to discuss with leftists and liberals, their mind is warped, they cannot grasp the most basic concepts, goodbye.
MR. LONDON:SOCIAL JUSTICE,() IS ALIVE AND WELL: I RECENTLY HEARD OF AN ACLU LIBARD BEATEN TO DEATH BY A PAROLEE?
Life is not Fair…
No Moho #58, in redistributive politics you always take from those who have more to give to those who have less, be it through force or progressive taxation. So in my example you would have to reduce the grade of the A students.
Both statements are fallacious. First, social justice is not necessarily redistributive simply because you want it to be. Look at this way. When the federal government uses tax revenue to build a highway in California, has it redistributed wealth? Or has it simply allocated the resources that Americans have agreed as the government’s respnsibility…or are you rejecting the highways, the vast majority of which you use were paid for by the tax dollars of others who will most likely never even see them, much less use them? You can’t simply say that social justice is redistributive as if that’s unique in our political structure–all economic outlays in a taxed central government economy are likewise redistributive.
Second, and most obviously, the teacher need not take away from an A to raise a C to a C plus. I can’t imagine how you would make that argument.
It is a METAPHOR, you moron! And now building highways is a form of “social justice”?!? I give up…
It’s simple.
Social Justice is the universal application in both micro and macro environments of: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
The problems all arise when obedience to this simple instruction is imposed, rather than allowed and encouraged to emanate from individuals.
And now building highways is a form of “social justice”?!? I give up…
Jeez, you really did deserve that D…its redistribution, the way I pay for the highway you use, even though I’ll never use it. Dense, much?
Moho: “First, social justice is not necessarily redistributive simply because you want it to be.”
I now refer you to your own comment on this thread at #6 in which you give the “normal vertebrate understanding” of the term as consisting of “progressive taxation, income redistribution, or even property redistribution”
Moho: “Second, and most obviously, the teacher need not take away from an A to raise a C to a C plus. I can’t imagine how you would make that argument.”
Income cannot just be made up out of thin air to award like a grade. When it’s redistributed in the name of “social justice” (which by the way has zero to do with your highway example)the A+’s and B+’s obviously suffer a deduction.
So the averaging of everyone’s grades against one another rather than an averaging of an individual’s grades is the more suitable metaphor when we’re talking about money, not intangible things like grades. Duh.
Najin. Income is redistributed to create highways. There’s no other way to explain how a highway in Texas can be built with my federal tax dollars.
Social justice = Wealth redistribution . Why are those opposed , afraid to say it ?
Need I remind you’ll where Social Justice came from originally .
You probably guessed . It was Karl Marx term written in his own words then uses later in 1917 by Y. Lien .
Along with “”Diversity” and Open Boarders and No money used as currencies “”"”" because Every one is Equal ” along with Useful Idiots term used by Lien when referring to Children .
We saw how that all worked out in Russia 100 plus murdered and starved to death later by my MAO as well who became a Stalinist as well .
The term was picked up by Jews here in the early 1920 and then by Blacks in the 1960.s .
American Jews obviously have a death wish.
But I have the advantage over all of you. When I was a lad, I did read “Alice in Wonderland” and “Through the Looking Glass and what Alice Found There”.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean–neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master–that’s all.”
@67. Moho: – Income is redistributed to create highways.
Heh. No, Mo’. Income is not redistributed to create highways.
Federal tax dollars are used to purchase the creation of highways. Construction companies and construction workers earn the Taxpayers’ dollars spent on creation and maintenance of highways. Same with fire and law enforcement departments – firefighters and police earn that money. In all of these cases, federal tax dollars are paid out for goods and services rendered, to those who choose to earn them. Moreover, in all of these cases, everyone benefits from these expenditures – everyone can choose to use the roads, everyone benefits from the transportation services made possible by the roads, and everyone benefits from fire and police departments: the so-called “poor”, the so-called “middle-class”, and even the so-called “rich”. Everyone.
Income is redistributed when it’s taken from one person and given to another person – in the form of welfare – in return for doing nothing whatsoever apart from breathing, taking up space and/or producing offspring. Income is redistributed when it’s taken from one person and spent on another individual’s behalf for their individual benefit. Unlike the above, in these cases, the individual welfare beneficiary does not earn the redistributed funds. In these cases, not everyone benefits. In fact, no one benefits from income redistribution except for the welfare beneficiary who didn’t earn the funds, and the commissar who is guaranteed social compliance and/or political support in return for the welfare check funded by other people’s money.
Moho, are you really silly enough to believe that you don’t use those highways? Aside from highways that would be correctly classified as pork barrel projects, even if you don’t personally use them, you purchase goods that were transported on them.
@@ MOHO and Life is Not Fair
HEY!! Let’s clear this up…
It is NOT a metaphor – it is an analogy.
Now, then, back to the show
What is “social justice MR London? That’s easy, an Libtard killed by a parolee.
SOCIAL JUSTICE IS WHAT A LIBTARD WALL STREET PLUTOCRAT(THINK SOROS,ROBERT RUBIN ETC)USE AS A COVENIENT RHETORICAL TROPE, TO DIVERT ATTENTION FROM THEIR SOCIALLY VIRULENT GREED.
If you step back and compare this country not only to other countries, but any other country in history, you can argue that we already have “social justice”, at least as far as any country will ever achieve this on earth.
I ask you,
when else in the history of civilization have we had poor people who are overweight? Poor people with access to the same technology as rich people? How many people in this country, rich or poor, have cell phones? televisions? central heating? indoor plumbing? free vaccinations? free education? free (or nearly free) emergency medical services? Nearly all the citizens of this enormous country have all these things.
Most important- we can all worship as we please, and all have a free and equal vote regardless of income, race, sex or religion. Do you realize how radical that is? This was not true in any country less than 100 years ago! (France did not give women the right to vote until 1944.)
These are unprecedented achievements in history. This is unheard of in much of the world right now.
As Thomas Sowell has noted ,”the perfect is the enemy of the good”. We already have the most just system in history. We have the highest level of private charitable giving per capita in the world. This is the result of free enterprise and our constitutional republic. No other system has achieved this level of equality and prosperity and freedom. It is not perfect- but it is the best there is, and we should stick to it if we truly care about the weak and the poor.
I just love rhetorical questions; first you ask them then you go on about your subjective views.
Social justice simply means that people are entitled to basic human rights and equality. And a part of that is in our tax system: would it be fair for a guy earning millions of dollars a year to contribute the same amount as a person earning 15k ?
After reading some of the posts on here, it’s sad to see such bitter rhetoric. It’s good to care about yourself, but even children can do that.