Skip to comments.Social Justice is Incompatible with Federalism
Posted on 04/02/2010 10:15:24 AM PDT by GregoTX
Social Justice for All
It appears that there are two popular definitions of social justice. One involves an individual who chooses to give freely to people in need; this one is historically referred to as charity. The other requires the use of government force under the guise of good will to seize production from one and give to another. This one is nothing but theft and historically results in little less than slavery. Unfortunately, this is what most people mean when they speak of social justice.
Definition of Justice:
The administering of deserved punishment or reward
Is it possible that adding the word social before justice can result in a definition that makes it just to steal from someone because it is socially acceptable to do so? Promoters of social justice should spend a moment and reflect on which definition they support, why they embrace it and whether their concept of justice infringes on another persons rights or freedom, and whether this other person guilty of a crime and thus punishment.
When the definition of social justice does not involve government force then it is easily supported. Voluntarily sharing private wealth with someone in need is truly a selfless act of love. On the other hand, if the definition somehow involves government force, then that position represents a hostile act counter to any possible definition of justice.
Christians often support the social justice movement because they have been led to believe believe that government enforced redistribution represents a selfless act, thereby an act of charity. As a Christian myself, I must ask what selfless act was performed and by whom? Does the government that administers such a program act selflessly or do they act in their own best interest? Are the politicians honorable statesmen or are they corrupt and self-serving? Is the Church that sponsors such an act selfless, or is it frustrated by its failure to elicit charitable action from free men? Are you as an individual acting without regards to self, or do you somehow believe that the way to win hearts is by force? Is it selfless to force someone under penalty of law to provide for another?
All social justice advocates should consider this: How can justice arbitrarily be redefined by the creation of law that takes property from one man that has committed no crime and gives it to another who has offered no service to earn it? That is injustice, by definition.
Definition of Injustice:
Violation of anothers rights
Regardless, social justice advocates march on chanting and social justice for all without respect for our founding documents and the concepts of life, liberty and property; and while ignoring that social justice is nothing more than a selfish lie disguised as a selfless act.
Social Justice is Incompatible with Federalism
So what does this have to do with the 10th amendment and state sovereignty?
As a Texan, I know that a large majority of my fellow citizens do not want the laundry list of enslavement acts that the social justice movement proposes. The recent passage of the health care bill was a huge win for social justice activists. But the win is short sighted because if left to stand it will literally rip this country apart. In Texas, large numbers have properly identified government enforced social justice as a farce designed to control and over-tax the population, not unlike the goals of global warming advocates, or dictators from the recent past.
The Constitutional solution for social justice champions would be to implement their programs at the state level. The founders knew that different regions would have different needs and priorities, so they did two things. First, they chained the federal government down and outlined only specific enumerated topics upon which federal laws could be made and enforced. Second, they left the state governments options wide open.
Madison made this clear in Federalist #45:
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.
The catch is that states must find a way to fund expensive social justice programs.
Free men do not produce so that others can loot. And that is the rub, isnt it? If social justice programs are implemented at the state level, then it will be impossible to force producers to continue to produce. Individuals and corporations will simply move to another state; and without these producers paying taxes, the state will go broke. Lacking a fiscally sound method of implementation at the state level, social justice programs are fundamentally incompatible with federalism as defined in our Constitution.
Ignoring these Constitutional restraints, the social justice movement has positioned the federal government to become the administrator of justice precisely because it has the ability to use the force of the barrel of a gun to keep producers producing. Keep in mind, having the ability is not the same as having the Constitutional authority; and when the federal government attempts to create and then enforce laws in which it has no authority, we have a real problem as a country.
Thomas Jefferson bluntly stated:
Whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force
Its also important to note that, unlike the states, the federal government has the ability to print money. This is significant to the social justice movement because real production plummets when individual incentives are removed from the system. By design, printing money will help alleviate the pain of becoming a second-rate country at least for a little while.
At some point, since history tends to repeat itself, the federal gloves will come off. Hopefully, when this happens state representatives will have already passed aggressive state-level nullification and interposition legislation to protect the people from these unconstitutional laws and enforcement measures. Otherwise, we the people are on our own.
Social Justice is hardly true justice at all.
True Justice is applying all laws equally across all population groups irreguardless of race, economic status, religion, etc...
Social Justice is applying laws and enforcement of those laws BASED off of someone’s Race, Ecnomic Status, Religion etc...
PRECISELY!. If the left and lib RHINOS want the government to pursue justice, THEY NEED TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION, If they want a single payer system- AMEND THE CONSTITUTION. If you want an individual mandate-AMEND THE CONSTITUTION. Republicans, repeat after me. IF YOU WANT THAT [liberal agenda item], AMEND THE CONSTITUTION.
One way or another, the principles of Constitutional Federalism pre-rat bastard FDR, is coming back.
“Social Justice” is a fancy name for stealing from one group of society under the lie that those who don’t have are in that situation cause the system won’t let them, so they deserve a share just because.
It’s still theft.
Social justice like its cell-mate socialism covets the wealth of others and schemes to use government to steal it under the color of law. It lies to gain supporters in telling us that it is only seeking to improve society. It lies to us by implying that government can secure more prosperity than free exchange. It lies to us when it tells us that a central authority can make wise decisions. It lies to us when it induces people to give it powers that they do not have the right to delegate, powers that it seeks to seize for itself if they do not.
Social justice is anything but just. There is no true justice apart from God and His Law.
For the time being, lets skip the “theft” part.
Private charities are over twice as effective as the Federal Leviathan. For every dollar donated, approximately $.80 makes it the recipients. The Federal Government lines its pockets, and bureaucrats build their empires with Federal “charity;” only $.30 of every dollar spent makes it to the recipients.
The truth is, that the purpose of Federal “charity” is buy votes and establish patronage.
Naturally the idea was too simple and elegant and went nowhere in official Washington with Tip O'Neal et. al.
The basic bottom line ideas of such a program would be that money would never be given to anybody, and the program would never operate in such a way as to stand ordinary morality on its head. The incentive for work if it was at all possible would be re-enforced rather than diminished. Only bare necessities of food, shelter, books, and clothing and such would be involved. It would be known that TV sets, stereos, designer clothes, cars, motorcycles, real estate, and anything else which somebody might ever want required joining the workforce and earning money.
Again, such policies would not resemble welfare as we've experienced it all our lives and even Ronald Reagan recognized the necessity of a modern state to provide some sort of a safety net for people in greatest need.
There can be zero future for any sort of a political party in a modern state which advocates simply allowing people to starve, or allowing children to lack food or the books and clothing needed to attend schools. I mean, conservatism is great, but you also need to know where the boundaries of the real world are.
Hunger is a great motivator to work.
Taking care of the poor is and always has been the job of the church as commissioned by Jesus and it should be to get people back on their feet, like the Amish do, not as a permanent lifestyle which your proposed plan would end up being, just as present day welfare is now.
No hand outs from the government. Period.
All you’re offering is welfare lite, which will not stay that way and will not motivate people to get off it.
Few people outside of FR and other political junkies have a clue that "Federalism" is actually a good thang; it just doesn't have a positive ring to it(I wonder how that happened???). Once one begins to explain the concept to the casual observer, well you know that glassy-eyed look...
What I'm offering is a handful of suggestions as to what Republican/conservative social programs might plausibly look like if pubbies had the sense to do it and, again, Ronald Reagan was on my side on this one or he would not have commissioned the study I mention. Ronald Reagan was conservative enough for me at least...
Other than that, I'd be happy with a church-only approach if you could guarantee me that no child in America would ever be left out of such a system because either he didn't fit into some church's scheme of things or because the church was too busy fighting lawsuits involving celibacy (or the lack thereof) to deal with it.
Eva Peron mentioned giving some poor woman a sewing machine and getting a letter in the mail the next week with five pesos in it from the woman's first earnings with the thing. That's the sort of thing which strikes me as a rational social program and the churches in Argentina had had years and multiple opportunities to provide that poor woman with a sewing machine and had never done it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.