Posted on 01/19/2017 1:35:34 PM PST by Kaslin
The prevailing political discourse seems to be consumed with the bromides of social justice, carefully tended by political and intellectual classes claiming special knowledge of its demands.
Friedrich Hayek, perhaps the greatest intellectual of the past century, was famously critical of the concept. Justice is an attribute of individual action, Hayek said. I can be just or unjust towards my fellow man. But the conception of a social justice is not only a meaningless conception, its completely impossible. Hayek argued everyone talks about social justice without knowing what it means, and he reasoned the idea of social justice puts the cart before the horse by arbitrarily demanding certain end results when justice is actually about means.
It is ironic todays liberals should espouse social justice, making it the centerpiece of their proposed solutions to problems of poverty. Only in vain do the champions of this most slippery notion search for answers in attacks on economic liberalism. Long centuries have passed since the one and only cure for poverty, importantly humankinds natural state, was discovered in trade and its concomitants, the division and specialization of labor. Its proven merits notwithstanding, that solution suffers from the fact it cannot be achieved through the edicts of rulers, that it must be allowed to develop on its own without the interference of those who believe they must know better. Let it be is not a motto suited to the stump speeches of politicians eager to impress crowds with the seeming sophistication of their schemes.
Todays social justice warriors have forgotten, in the words of Hayeks teacher Ludwig von Mises, It is precisely want and misery that liberalism seeks to abolish, and it considers the means that it proposes the only suitable ones for the achievement of this end. Mises continues, All economic policies are designed as remedies for poverty.
It is worthwhile to reiterate this simple fact: Virtually all social and economic designs purport to achieve peace, justice, and prosperity. The correct question, therefore, asks not about the intentions of a policys proponentswhich are, in any case, quite undiscoverablebut about the real-world relationship between the stated goal and the means chosen to achieve it. It is futile to look for answers to social problems without assessing whether the supposed cures are not themselves aggravating the problems. History teaches oftentimes the solutions, particularly those of crusading apostles of social justice, are deeply incompatible with their own explicit objectives.
Consider 20th century communists, whom we might regard as the quintessential social justice warriors. Their blood-soaked revolutions were supposed to finally free the workers of the world from the waking nightmare of drudgery and poverty. Instead, they instituted programs that exacerbated the problems of poverty and want, undoing the progress ushered in by the classical liberalism of Mises and Hayek.
Under actual communist regimes, the subject of poverty itself was off limits, if not legally verboten. Poverty scholar Serena Romano points out in several of the Soviet Republics, terms like poverty and slums were actually banned from official sources, cast into the memory hole. Merely to suggest poverty persisted was to cast doubt upon the entire edifice of Soviet-style authoritarian communism, and, for that reason, it could not be tolerated. It is important to understand, as Romano does, poverty is a politically-constructed concept, conceivable only in a world that has discovered the escape velocity at which human beings might leave behind the unspeakably widespread impoverished state that has held us for millennia on end. To put it another way, poverty was conspicuous as a social and economic problem only as human civilization began to overcome it. So long-standing and so complete was its victory that in the past it was virtually invisible, the unremarkable normal condition of life. Communism, the living rejection of market liberalism, was a relapse into this tragic, if normal, state. As columnist Steve Chapman wrote in 1990, people living behind the Iron Curtain were even worse off than the fiercest anticommunists imagined, often hopelessly malnourished and destined for an early grave.
Confronted with this sad history of anti-free-market ideas turning back the clock, reversing the trends of increasing health and wealth, Misess lesson about means matching ends appears particularly salient. This lesson ought to guide the libertarian in his promotion of the freedom philosophy. As the conversation turns from abstractly-defined philosophical concepts, such as equality and justice, to partisan politics and then from politics to concrete public policy, perhaps taking the form of legislation, the important fact of shared underlying goals is lost in translation, obscured by the inanities of team loyalty.
We would get further in our debates about political and economic ideas if we refrained from imputing bad motives, assuming rather that our interlocutors share most of our basic values. The adoption of such a posture allows us to more specifically identify points of genuine disagreement and new questions, the answers to which might resolve some of our apparent differences of opinion. For instance, most self-described socialists have taken up their socialist ideas out of genuinely felt concern for workers, a moral and emotional investment in their rights and the conditions under which they labor. Instead of condescendingly insisting this concern is misplaced, advocates of economic freedom might note actual socialism has been an utter catastrophe for poor and working-class people.
Cronyism and communism rely on the same fundamentally destructive principle: coercive intervention in the otherwise peaceful world of commerce, the states choosing of winners and losers. Both programs are decidedly regressive, privileging insiders and cutting off the roads to prosperity. Economies are rather like human beings; in both, adaptation, change, and movement in general indicate life and vitality, while sclerosis and stasis mean death. It is not that coercive impediments to voluntary, mutually-beneficial trade cause poverty, but, more accurately, that they preempt the dynamic processes through which povertys grim rule is overthrown.
History has given us only a taste of the market economy, a hint of its potential to create and disperse wealth. Free markets are a peaceful force multiplier, the key to unlocking the outpouring of material abundance that has lifted billions out of the most abject conditions. Free markets, private property, and individual rights did this, not socialism, communism, nor vague notions of social justice. These simple principles are the most significant anti-poverty program yet discovered, the only one that has truly spread the wealth.
The whole beauty of the theory of Social Justice is that it can mean whatever it’s proponents want it to means and then brand people who don’t agree with them as socially unjust and thus evil and deceiving of punishment
oops
The whole beauty of the theory of Social Justice is that it can mean whatever its proponents want it to mean and then let them brand people who dont agree with their definition of Social Justice as socially unjust and thus evil and deserving of punishment
‘Justice’ isn’t very ‘social.’ She’s BLIND and doesn’t get out much.
But President-Elect Trump is setting Her up with a Seeing Eye Dog, as I type. ;)
To dismantle “Social Justice”:
Define it.
Bkmrk.
restore night sticks
run away, get shot
Resist get black jacked
threaten a cop, get maced
for starters
I don’t think it can be done without getting rid of at least some of the people and reorganizing the departments. Based on my interaction with the US EPA, the notion of the “social justice community” is so interwoven with the way they approach everything it’s become part of the language and culture. Questioning it produces awkward pauses and offended remarks as if you’d used the n-word.
wealth redistribution - old, sad term
social justice - new, happy term
democrat - old, sad term
NEW democrat - new, happy term
Use Alinsky against them, and turn the SJW to good use. For example, they can keep a beat and play a mean drums.
we can stop funding groups who fight the government. There is no entitlement to funds. I recall a few years ago La Raza got 100 million from the federal government. It is outrageous to fund racist groups who want to take part of the US and give it to Mexico.
run away, get shot
Bad idea if the person gets shot in the back by the police
Resist get black jacked
Agreed
threaten a cop, get maced
Deservingly
well, if you want shot in the chest, run backwards
shot in the back is prima fascia proof of running
I tell my students that Thoreau refuted social justice because justice is defined by the individual and his willingness to stand up and face society when he feels it’s tug.
+1000 for including SJW trigglypuff in the discussion.
Bookmarked.
Justice is blind. Social Justice is not blind, it looks, and tries to make all outcomes equal, and is therefore, not justice at all, but redistribution colored by personal biases.
+1
She is a BEAUTY!
Hoping We The People can do her proud in the upcoming years.
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.