Social Justice

[Michelle420]

most of the descriptions attached to it appertain to impersonal states of affairs—“high unemployment” or “inequality of incomes” or “lack of a living wage” are cited as instances of “social injustice.” Hayek goes to the heart of the matter: social justice is either a virtue or it is not. If it is, it can properly be ascribed only to the reflective and deliberate acts of individual persons. Most who use the term, however, ascribe it not to individuals but to social systems. They use “social justice” to denote a regulative principle of order; again, their focus is not virtue but power.

“social justice rightly understood” is that it aims at the good of the city, not at the good of one agent only. Citizens may band together, as in pioneer days, to put up a school or build a bridge. They may get together in the modern city to hold a bake sale for some charitable cause, to repair a playground, to clean up the environment, or for a million other purposes that their social imaginations might lead them to. Hence the second sense in which this habit of justice is “social”: its object, as well as its form, primarily involves the good of others.

Article | First Things

This seems to be a good distinction in my opinion.

 

[rightwinger]

Agreed. But to extend the metaphor a bit, I might characterize the difference between justice and social justice as the difference between making sure everyone follows the rules of the game, and an intra-league revenue sharing program - aimed at ensuring the everyone gets their share of winning.

I do not believe anyone is trying to play Robin Hood and confiscate the wealth of the rich and distribute to the poor. What government has to do is look at the rules of the game and figure out why one team is scoring at will while the other team can't get off a shot.

Is the assumption, in this example, that there is some 'unfair' reason why one team wins all the time? Something beside them just being better at the game?

If the rules of the game need to be adjusted, so be it

Under what circumstances would they need to be adjusted?

It all falls back to the Golden Rule

He who has the gold makes the rules

For the past 30 years those rules have been set up to ensured that the wealthy (job creators) have unencumbered access to accumulating and maintaining wealth. In helping to make the rules, the wealthy assured us that concentrating wealth at the top would encourage more investment in our country, more jobs and a stronger economy for all.

Well, it was worth a shot, but it didn't work

Time to go back to the old rules where the worker had more influence

 

[Redfish]

I do not believe anyone is trying to play Robin Hood and confiscate the wealth of the rich and distribute to the poor. What government has to do is look at the rules of the game and figure out why one team is scoring at will while the other team can't get off a shot.

Is the assumption, in this example, that there is some 'unfair' reason why one team wins all the time? Something beside them just being better at the game?

If the rules of the game need to be adjusted, so be it

Under what circumstances would they need to be adjusted?

It all falls back to the Golden Rule

He who has the gold makes the rules

For the past 30 years those rules have been set up to ensured that the wealthy (job creators) have unencumbered access to accumulating and maintaining wealth. In helping to make the rules, the wealthy assured us that concentrating wealth at the top would encourage more investment in our country, more jobs and a stronger economy for all.

Well, it was worth a shot, but it didn't work

Time to go back to the old rules where the worker had more influence

ridiculous, but your envy of successful people is noted.

Workers are not forced to work for an employer that does not treat them well---at least not yet, under obama marxism that may not be the case---but currently you can quit and find another job, start your own business, or just sit on your ass and collect welfare.

Our laws do not favor corporations and the rich------just ask Madoff and OJ.

 

[Redfish]

This is a very good thread idea - although I see it is already being smeared with the usual partisan cliches.

Firstly, although it is not the role of government to pursue social justice per se, there can not be social justice without government support.

Social justice is different from ordinary justice, in that it is not about laws and courts. Social justice is, to my mind, a way of saying that people should get a fair deal in everything they do.

For instance - that all kids should get a fair shot at a good education, and not have richer children receiving a better education than the kids born down the street.

Likewise, everyone should be able to see a doctor when they need one. That is a key element of social justice.

So laws and legislation need to support these imperatives, but more so I think it is about the culture; that people live in an environment where justice and freedoms are respected and valued.

I don't see this as a left/right issue, although of course it is fair to say that the left highlights the legislating of these principles more than the right does; who tend to allow it to occur by market conditions alone.

We already have social justice in this country. The constitution guarantees it. Yes, it has been abused in the past, but today no one is denied the american dream if he or she is willing to work for it---and thats the key-----work for it----not get it handed to them.

Equal opportunity is guaranteed, not equal results. Thats the part that liberal progressives don't get.

I totally agree. Equal opportunity does not mean equal results, and it shouldn't. There should be no guarantee of success. There are people who would see social justice as meaning there is such a guarantee, but they are wrong. Which goes to my point that the term really has no meaning because it is entirely subjective.

There is a photo of a lynching in a midwest town. I won't post it here, but it is easy enough to find. Two men hanging while the towns people smile for the camera. I can guarantee the people on the ground thought what was happening was justice. I doubt the two men agreed, or their families.

Which is why I prefer to deal with these issues not from basis of a subjective concept but strictly from the point of view how we want our society to be. That success is not guaranteed is a given for me, but do we wish for failure to mean starvation? Do we want shantytowns? Do we want cholera epidemics? Because the reality is that while success is not guaranteed for the individual, it is guaranteed that there will be failure. There will always be losers in the game and the question is how do we treat the losers.

Society should care for those who cannot care for themselves. People who voluntarily put themselves in poverty should be left on their own.

I see homeless people every day begging for money---not food---money. Is it better to give them money to buy booze and drugs or to put them in some kind of rehab facility?

and after they finish rehab, if they return to the booze and drugs---what then? How long should our empathy last?

 

[koshergrl]

Social justice? Must be lefty code-speak for taxing something. Or taking something away we all take for granted. Like rights and stuff.

It's code for communism.

 

[rightwinger]

Is the assumption, in this example, that there is some 'unfair' reason why one team wins all the time? Something beside them just being better at the game?



Under what circumstances would they need to be adjusted?

It all falls back to the Golden Rule

He who has the gold makes the rules

For the past 30 years those rules have been set up to ensured that the wealthy (job creators) have unencumbered access to accumulating and maintaining wealth. In helping to make the rules, the wealthy assured us that concentrating wealth at the top would encourage more investment in our country, more jobs and a stronger economy for all.

Well, it was worth a shot, but it didn't work

Time to go back to the old rules where the worker had more influence

ridiculous, but your envy of successful people is noted.

Workers are not forced to work for an employer that does not treat them well---at least not yet, under obama marxism that may not be the case---but currently you can quit and find another job, start your own business, or just sit on your ass and collect welfare.

Our laws do not favor corporations and the rich------just ask Madoff and OJ.

While invoking the Golden Rule, looking out for the rights of your employees does not carry much weight

Workers don't really need those pesky unions
Workers don't want health insurance
Workers prefer to be temporary employees

He who has the gold, makes the rules

 

[Michelle420]

Ordinary Justice : an individual's rights have been violated
Social Justice: the publics rights have been violated

 

[Redfish]

It all falls back to the Golden Rule

He who has the gold makes the rules

For the past 30 years those rules have been set up to ensured that the wealthy (job creators) have unencumbered access to accumulating and maintaining wealth. In helping to make the rules, the wealthy assured us that concentrating wealth at the top would encourage more investment in our country, more jobs and a stronger economy for all.

Well, it was worth a shot, but it didn't work

Time to go back to the old rules where the worker had more influence

ridiculous, but your envy of successful people is noted.

Workers are not forced to work for an employer that does not treat them well---at least not yet, under obama marxism that may not be the case---but currently you can quit and find another job, start your own business, or just sit on your ass and collect welfare.

Our laws do not favor corporations and the rich------just ask Madoff and OJ.

While invoking the Golden Rule, looking out for the rights of your employees does not carry much weight

Workers don't really need those pesky unions
Workers don't want health insurance
Workers prefer to be temporary employees

He who has the gold, makes the rules

Unions have lost members because they are corrupt
employers are cancelling health coverage because obamacare makes it too expensive
hours are being cut to escape the obamacare penalties.

does following the golden rule mean going out of business in order to give benefits to employees? If the company goes bankrupt how does that help the workers?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

From my understanding, one of the distinguishing priorities of modern liberal/progressives is the desire to pursue "social justice" as a policy goal of government. In another thread, it was suggested that this term has been polluted by propagandists. I wasn't really aware that there was any dispute as to it's meaning, but the issue seems worthy of it's own thread.

So, what is social justice? How does it differ from ordinary justice? Is it something we should work toward as a society? Is it something for which government should be responsible?

No. It's BS.

 

[rightwinger]

ridiculous, but your envy of successful people is noted.

Workers are not forced to work for an employer that does not treat them well---at least not yet, under obama marxism that may not be the case---but currently you can quit and find another job, start your own business, or just sit on your ass and collect welfare.

Our laws do not favor corporations and the rich------just ask Madoff and OJ.

While invoking the Golden Rule, looking out for the rights of your employees does not carry much weight

Workers don't really need those pesky unions
Workers don't want health insurance
Workers prefer to be temporary employees

He who has the gold, makes the rules

Unions have lost members because they are corrupt
employers are cancelling health coverage because obamacare makes it too expensive
hours are being cut to escape the obamacare penalties.

does following the golden rule mean going out of business in order to give benefits to employees? If the company goes bankrupt how does that help the workers?

Companies are making record profits

Its not trickling down to the employees

The Golden Rule is working

 

[rightwinger]

JFK in speaking about the economy once said.......A rising tide lifts all boats

Since the Reagan policies were enacted thirty years ago, The rising tide only lifts the yachts

 

[dblack]

Ordinary Justice : an individual's rights have been violated
Social Justice: the publics rights have been violated

Interesting. Seems to poke at something significant about the concept.

Along the same lines, ordinary justice usually applies to individuals. There are clear victims and violators. But that all gets pretty vague in issues of social justice.

 

[Redfish]

JFK in speaking about the economy once said.......A rising tide lifts all boats

Since the Reagan policies were enacted thirty years ago, The rising tide only lifts the yachts

Do you have anything to post besides horseshit? The lower and middle classes in the USA are better off than the upper classes in most of the world.

Yes, some CEOs make too much money. BFD, life is not always fair, grow up.

 

[rightwinger]

JFK in speaking about the economy once said.......A rising tide lifts all boats

Since the Reagan policies were enacted thirty years ago, The rising tide only lifts the yachts

Do you have anything to post besides horseshit? The lower and middle classes in the USA are better off than the upper classes in most of the world.

Yes, some CEOs make too much money. BFD, life is not always fair, grow up.

The American worker doesn't compare his situation to the rest of the world. He could care less about how people in Somalia and Greece are doing. Americans compare their situation to where they were 10 and 20 years ago and see they are not as well off.

Each generation used to look at their parents and strive to be more successful. Todays generation doesn't have that chance and still lives with their parents

 

[dblack]

I'd also say that a large component of social justice, from an activist's standpoint, involves second-guessing the way society values different people and their relative contributions.

For example, living wage advocates seem to be aiming at correcting what they the perceive to be society's unjust valuation of low-skilled workers. Likewise, if most people in society think "a woman's place is in the home", social justice demands their opinions be modified, or at least countered with state policy. It's not enough for the social justice advocate to prevent any legal barriers to women working - we should proactively address what is considered to be an unjust bias on the part of society.

 

[PratchettFan]

We already have social justice in this country. The constitution guarantees it. Yes, it has been abused in the past, but today no one is denied the american dream if he or she is willing to work for it---and thats the key-----work for it----not get it handed to them.

Equal opportunity is guaranteed, not equal results. Thats the part that liberal progressives don't get.

I totally agree. Equal opportunity does not mean equal results, and it shouldn't. There should be no guarantee of success. There are people who would see social justice as meaning there is such a guarantee, but they are wrong. Which goes to my point that the term really has no meaning because it is entirely subjective.

There is a photo of a lynching in a midwest town. I won't post it here, but it is easy enough to find. Two men hanging while the towns people smile for the camera. I can guarantee the people on the ground thought what was happening was justice. I doubt the two men agreed, or their families.

Which is why I prefer to deal with these issues not from basis of a subjective concept but strictly from the point of view how we want our society to be. That success is not guaranteed is a given for me, but do we wish for failure to mean starvation? Do we want shantytowns? Do we want cholera epidemics? Because the reality is that while success is not guaranteed for the individual, it is guaranteed that there will be failure. There will always be losers in the game and the question is how do we treat the losers.

Society should care for those who cannot care for themselves. People who voluntarily put themselves in poverty should be left on their own.

I see homeless people every day begging for money---not food---money. Is it better to give them money to buy booze and drugs or to put them in some kind of rehab facility?

and after they finish rehab, if they return to the booze and drugs---what then? How long should our empathy last?

It is not a question of empathy. It is a question of a healthy society. Extreme poverty, hunger and disease are not conducive to a healthy society. Most people in this country have never seen anything like that, because our society takes active measures to prevent it. As a result, they are under the mistaken impression that everything will be fine if we cease those measures. There are plenty of countries out there which follow your philosophy of leaving people on there own and a visit to them can be quite an education.

I would point out that those measures were instituted not by the weak and poor, but by the strong and rich. They were implemented by people who lived in America when there were no such measures and personally experienced the results of that. It was after that experience that those people established our current safeguards.

 

[Michelle420]

Ordinary Justice : an individual's rights have been violated
Social Justice: the publics rights have been violated

Interesting. Seems to poke at something significant about the concept.

Along the same lines, ordinary justice usually applies to individuals. There are clear victims and violators. But that all gets pretty vague in issues of social justice.

To promote and protect the public’s health, one example of a social violation might be to contaminate public water.

 

[bripat9643]

JFK in speaking about the economy once said.......A rising tide lifts all boats

Since the Reagan policies were enacted thirty years ago, The rising tide only lifts the yachts

Do you have anything to post besides horseshit? The lower and middle classes in the USA are better off than the upper classes in most of the world.

Yes, some CEOs make too much money. BFD, life is not always fair, grow up.

The reason CEO's make so much more now than they used to is the anti-takeover legislation that unions agitated for in the 1980s. becuase of that legislation, CEOs can now pay themselves as much as they want and there is no means to discipline them. Previously, when corporate management got greedy and corrupt, a third company could buy up the stock and kick them all out. That's no longer possible, for the most part.

Unions have no one to blame but themselves for the extreme level of CEO pay. as is typical with all liberal solutions to a problem, they create a new one every time they attempt to solve the existing "problem."

 

[dblack]

Ordinary Justice : an individual's rights have been violated
Social Justice: the publics rights have been violated

Interesting. Seems to poke at something significant about the concept.

Along the same lines, ordinary justice usually applies to individuals. There are clear victims and violators. But that all gets pretty vague in issues of social justice.

To promote and protect the public’s health, one example of a social violation might be to contaminate public water.

The concept of health care as a "right" definitely sees to go along with social justice, if not exactly the same thing. Contaminating water is a straight justice issue from my perspective.

The most disturbing aspect of 'social justice', in my view, is the way it promotes corporatism.

 

[Antares]

JFK was a Tax Cutting President.....RW just doesn't want to look at that.