What Exactly Is 'Social Justice'? (It sort of sounds good, until you seriously think about it)

There were many of those as you indicate, however, they were small fry. They did not have the large holdings and considerable wealth of the gentry, and aristocracy. Those shopkeepers, engineers, and freehold farmers were still part of the lower classes unrelated to the crown.

Their success depended on the largess and in many cases the approval of the large manor owner or directly the crown.

Those who lived in cities were for the most part not landowners, and what land they did own was nominal.

Those who lived in the small towns operated on the direct and indirect influence of the manor.

Many of the locals worked directly for the manor, or in one of the ancillary businesses that supported the manor operations. Many were land lease farmers who worked land leased from the manor.

I don’t think that you fully appreciate the lingering effects of the royals and their extended families, and those who were bestowed favor by the crown and their extended families too. There is one hell of a lot of people. princes, counts, viceroy, etc. etc. etc. who are related to the crown, by blood. Though they may not be in the direct line of succession, they benefit from the influence and deference for members of the royal classes.

Remember, this is 1850. The crown still wielded considerable influence.

In the USA, there is no royalty with hundreds of years of accumulated wealth and influence. In 1850 this was still a pretty poor country for the most part. There were centers like the whaling and coal businesses that created wealthy individuals, but it was not centuries worth of wealth, it was the accumulation of a couple of decades of an individuals working lifetime. There are significant differences in the the scheme of 20+ years versus 200+ years.

Just a bit of perspective.

***The truth is that the only “class” in the United States excluded from reaping the benefits of capitalism is the class that chooses not to participate in American society. Fueled by the rhetoric of leftists, this class sits idle, dreaming of perceived wrongs that justify its inactivity.***

The Parasite class, like my wothless brother-in-law(If you know him he probably owes you money! He filed for bankruptcy because for the last 30 years he couldn’t find work HE wanted to do!)

>I notice a lot of churches and seminary theologians are very attracted to this idea of “social justice”. Many pastors and seminary teachers seem to think that the Old Testament Levitical laws support this idea.

Why then must the thief make restitution for something he stole? IIRC, twice the value if it was not destroyed/harmed, seven-fold if it was.

Social justice is a way to even the score. Post modernists believe that all of history is simply a meta narrative that has been written by White men to prop up the Western White male power structure and perpetuate it. They believe that White men have “oppressed the minorities” for all of time and exploited the labor of the minorities to benefit themselves. Therefore, the Post Modernists have revised history to diminish the achievements of White men and tout the cultures of lesser developed societies as equal to or even better than Western white culture. In addition to re-writing history, they wish to roll back history and “return the wealth” to the rightful owners, the minorities.

The plan for returning the wealth is a One World Government, with a one world taxing authority and one world currency that will tax the wealthy nations and industries and redistribute the wealth through international unions that include third world countries. International unions would meant that moving a company off shore would not save money because you would be paying the same wages and benefits.

Despite the clamour of the hour he will know that the obligation to society is not the primal law and is not the source of personal integrity, but is secondary to personal integrity. He will believe that social justice is in itself desirable, but he will hold that it is far more important to preach first the responsibility of each man to himself for his own character. He will admit that equality of opportunity is an ideal to be aimed at, but he will think this a small thing in comparison with the universality of duty. In his attitude towards mankind he will not deny the claims of sympathy, but he will listen first to the voice of judgment:

Away with charity that soothes a lie,
And thrusts the truth with scorn and anger by.

He will be sensitive to the vast injustices of life and its widespread sorrows, but he will not be seduced by that compassion into the hypocrisy of saying that “the love of those whom a man does not know is quite as elemental as sentiment as the love of those whom a man does know.” Nor, in repudiating such a falsehood, will he, like the mistress of Hull Hall, lose his power of discrimination under the stress of “those vast and dominant suggestions of a new peace and holiness,” that is “to issue forth from broken human nature itself, out of the pathetic striving of ordinary men.” Rather, he will, at any cost, strive to dear away the clouds of cant, and so open his mind to the dictates of the everlasting morality.

Paul Elmer More.1902 The New Morality

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.