Posted on 05/16/2010 12:44:01 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Postmodernists want to put hope and change in the place of knowledge of God's will, Moral Law, the Laws of History and Economics, or the facts of science and reality.They want to substitute shared utopian dreams for individual freedom and reason.
“Social Justice” is equality of outcome. In other words, it is the punishment and denial of merit and achievement.
Social justice, multiculturalism--there're just euphemisms for communism. That's the way the Left softens its language. Talking about communism directly would offend people. So they couch it in terms that sound harmless. It's just wolves in sheep's clothing.
It means that everyone gets their five minutes of fame like socialite Paris Hilton.
They want to make the state the ultimate unchecked capitalist. Doleing out slave rations to the ignorant masses. Ending up with that which they hate.
Excellent.
Marx' theories were muddled. You are right about the aristocracy, but they weren't capitalists in any sense. Their wealth came from owning land. Commoners owned the factories. But he appealed to the model people knew and so they just figured that the capitalists would end up replacing the gentry.
But Marx was wrong about just about everything.
Ultimately, this is what “social justice” looks like. The members of the ruling class become the gentry in a mockery of feudalism.
I like telling people that they wouldn’t like “social justice” because they’d have to spend their lives carrying 1/4th of my sedan chair.
By way of explanation, the relevant verses of the NIV translation read, All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. .... There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need."
There are 3 reasons this is NOT communism. First, the sharing was voluntary. Second, it didn't involve ALL private property; only as much as was needed for the situation at hand. Finally, giving up one's material possessions and belongings was NOT a requirement for membership.
"Social justice" - aka communism - takes by force as much as it wants and everyone MUST participate. (Think health care!)
At the same time we work to restore the republic, we must also work to restore the churches to their authentic, Christian, purpose.
Disagree. Nineteenth-century England was "a nation of shopkeepers". Tradesmen, artificers, chandlers, merchants big and small, freehold farmers, masters and mates, junior army officers, and a small professional class of doctors, divines ("passing rich on forty pounds a year" -- as per Oliver Goldsmith), attorneys, and engineers made up the middle classes.
Even Silas Marner could accumulate a little pile of gold sovereigns.
Social justice is another name for equality. Equality can be applied to various categories, such as economic equality. If you begin with the foundational view that governments should promote equality, it will eventually lead to Marxism or Communism. Governments must enforce equality, for people left to themselves will not remain equal for long. Some people will prosper more than others. Equality can only be maintained in a society that takes from one group and gives to another. The United States was based upon the idea of individual freedom or rights, not economic equality. In a free society, people are free to prosper or to fail. There is no right to equality of results.
ML/NJ
Social justice means precisely what socialists intend it to mean, nothing more nor nothing less.
Usually they intend it to mean absolute equality, except when they don’t.
Social justice = giving power to liberals so they can control us
Bee hive mentality.
Class, what exactly is social justice?
O, O, O, pick me, pick me, teacher!!!
Okay, Johnny, what is social justice?
Systemic corruption, theft, shortage, mass deception and misery?
Very good, Johnny! You get 10 credit points on your grade.
It might be objected that, although we cannot give the term 'social justice' a precise meaning, this need not be a fatal objection ... we might not know what is 'socially just' yet we know quite well what is 'socially unjust'; and by persistently eliminating 'social injustice' whenever we encounter it, gradually approach 'social justice'. This, however, does not provide a way out of the basic difficulty. There can be no test by which we can discover what is 'socially unjust' because there is no subject by which such an injustice can be committed, and there are no rules of individual conduct the observance of which in the market order would secure to the individuals and groups the position which as such (as distinguished from the procedure by which it is determined) would appear just to us. [Social justice] does not belong to the category of error but to that of nonsense, like the term `a moral stone.'
from Law, Legislation, and Liberty; Volume II - The Mirage of Social Justice, Friedrich Hayek
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.