[Sam Cree]

"In similar fashion, we casually speak of the “haves” and “have nots,” terms which presume the “social injustice” the Left proposes to redress, while at the same time inflaming the passions of social resentment. Yet, as Friedrich Hayek and others have long pointed out, there is no social entity that divides up society’s wealth or can be said to distribute it unjustly. The very term “social justice” describes a prejudice and incitement of the Left, but only this.[10] In a society of liberal politics and economic markets, it would be more appropriate to speak of the “do’s” and the “do nots,” the “cans” and the “can nots,” the “wills” and the “will nots” -- terms that reflect the undeniable fact of American social mobility -- that individuals can and do make their own destinies, even in circumstances they may not control. Yet, no matter how conservative we may be, we could hardly use these accurate descriptive terms without being simultaneously assaulted by the suspicion that the very usage reflects a mean-spirited attitude on our part which “blames the victim.”

Horowitz puts it into words almost better than anyone else. Every Freeper should read this article. Thanks for posting it.

[purpleland]

"Horowitz puts it into words almost better than anyone else. Every Freeper should read this article. Thanks for posting it."

David Horowitz bestows the most level perspective and the deepest insight on issues.

http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/