Social Justice
12th February 2011
There is no theoretical or factual argument for income redistribution that cannot be met by a superior theoretical or factual argument against it. In the end, the case for (somehow) reducing income inequality turns on an emotional appeal for “social justice,” that is, for reshaping the world in a way that pleases the pleader. As if the pleader — in his or her pure, misguided arrogance — has superior wisdom about how the world should be shaped.
In fact, “social justice” usually (but not always) is code for redistributing income, either directly (through the taxing and spending power of government) or indirectly (through the power of government to require favoritism toward certain groups of persons). Make no mistake, there is no justice in “social justice.” True justice consists of two things, and only two things: the enforcement of voluntary, mutual obligations; the punishment of wrongdoing.
February 12th, 2011 at 13:18
When someone births a term like “social justice” they are almost alway trying to make just the opposite palatable. Social justice or redistribution of wealth or socialism WHATEVER you call it is inreality injustice. It is government intervening between one person and their bad decisions to lessen the consequences of bad behavior on the one hand, and for the resources to do so the same government intervenes between another person and the rewards or their hard labor or risk. Both ends of this philosophy are INJUSTICES done to citizens. It is no wonder even after many trials this system does not work. Those who have lived under this system know these truths by heart.