More ‘Social Justice’
18th June 2012
And who should be in charge of measuring welfare, summing it, and weighing the gains and losses in order to arrive at a socially “just” distribution of income, whatever that is? Well, we know the answer to that question: It has to be the state — or more accurately — elected officials and bureaucrats: people not known for their perspicacity, objectivity, and even-handedness.
In the alternative, a just society could be one where individuals engage in voluntary, cooperative exchanges of goods and services for their mutual betterment, and from the fruits of which they voluntarily aid those whom they know to be in need of aid.
The alternative is inevitably attacked as “unjust.” But it should be noted that such attacks come from individuals (philosophers, politicians, do-gooders, etc.) who would impose their own views of “social justice” on everyone. How any such imposition can be considered more “just” than a regime of voluntary, cooperative, mutually beneficial behavior is beyond me.
Me, too.
June 18th, 2012 at 06:30
“people not known for their perspicacity, objectivity, and even-handedness.” Right. Oligarchs are much more perceptive, objective, and even-handed.
“from the fruits of which they voluntarily aid those whom they know to be in need of aid.” Except that they don’t. They don’t acknowledge that anyone needs aid. In true NeoCalvinist style, they feel that those who Have Not are where they are because they are Unworthy. The reason the government has to get involved is because the Noble Volunteers aren’t getting the job done.
“But it should be noted that such attacks come from individuals…who would impose their own views of “social justice” on everyone.” Left unadressed of course is the obverse question: What gives the NeoCalvinists the moral authority to impose their views on ‘social justice’ on everyone?
Sauce for the goose…
June 18th, 2012 at 11:00
Quite honestly, many of the “Have Nots” are there because they deserve to be. Drugs, jail, or just plain laziness keep most of them in that same state. There are those who are just unlucky, but more often than not they are able to rise above their situation. Government assistance does more harm to the latter group than to the former; the useless will forever suck on the government’s teat, but the useful are often held back in fear of reducing benefits.
The neat thing about using the government to care for those in need is that it removes the necessity for the “haves” to actually come in contact with those dirty, needy people. The Barbara Streisands of the world can go to bed feeling good about themselves because they helped elect stout socialists to take care of their burden. Of course, the bureaucracy created will suck up most of the money, but that creates more useful idiots to keep them in power.
Left to their own devices, the terrible Haves of this country created all sorts of charities, built hospitals and orphanages, and provided food and shelter to generations in those terrible pre-New Deal days.
Beyond addressing Dennis’ comment, I must point out that the focus of the article is about using welfare as an excuse for increasing government control, something that started with that damned FDR and has continued with monstrous acceleration in the current kakistocratic regime.
June 18th, 2012 at 11:54
More myth-regurgitation. As I said, the NeoCalvinist official dogma is that the rich are rich because they are Favored of Go–er, the Invisible Hand, and the destitute are merely punished for their Unworth.
“The neat thing about using the government to care for those in need is that it removes the necessity for the “haves” to actually come in contact with those dirty, needy people.” I’m curious: As a Have, how many of the dirty and needy have you come into contact with? More to the point, how many have you helped? Multiply that by the number of Haves in the country, and you get a whole big Heap O’ Not Help. But of course your Not Help is justified because those you have Not Helped were Unworthy. How is that rationalization any better than Not Helping because we’ve set up some agency to do it for us?
As for the wonderful charities and other such things provided pre-New Deal, the benefactors only provided them after they had economically raped those whom they then purported to help. A line from Apocalypse Now is applicable: “It was the way we had over here of living with ourselves. We’d cut them in half with a machine gun and give them a Band-Aid.”
No, if the Haves stepped up to the plate, there would be no need for a pinch-hitter. But they haven’t and they won’t, so we do. Deal with it.
June 18th, 2012 at 14:12
In fact I have done quite a bit of charity work. It’s one of those ‘practice what you preach’ things.
One doesn’t have to look very far to find plenty of hospitals and such that were built by various church groups or wealthy individuals. Shriners hospitals were highly respected for treating burn victims. St. Jude’s provides for an amazing number of sick children.
People did step up to the plate – and still do. The government got involved because they could use “need” as a reason to expand and control more of the economy. Instead of helping, they’ve encouraged people to believe that only the government can feed, house, and care for them. “Five year plans and New Deals, wrapped in golden chains”
Economically raped? C’mon, Dennis! We expect better than for you to copy from the “Little Red Book of Leftist Catchphrases for Dummies”.
June 19th, 2012 at 06:26
Kudos to you for volunteering. Nice to see someone who walks the walk.
Hospitals and libraries are nice, but what people need is ‘operating income’, not ‘capital improvements’. And such funds are severly lacking, and always have been. Yes, people still step up–and will continue to do so, whether the government is involved or not–but it’s not enough. ‘Need’ isn’t just a catch-phrase or an excuse, it is real. And the economy has been found wanting in providing for those needs. The market is neither perfect nor infallible; I think even you and other right-leaning thinkers can see that in the wake of the market meltdown that followed on every investment banker pursuing his own ‘enlightened’ self-interest.
Where markets fail, something else must step in to correct them–and that, unfortunately, is government.