Column 2017-16 (5/8/17)
There is nothing new about using deceptive slogans and buzz words to sell ideas. This tactic is often focused on selling bad ideas. Thus, the term “social justice” has been revived and inflicted upon us.
Social justice isn’t a new idea. It is merely a rebranding of an old idea. Who could possibly oppose something as high sounding as “social justice?” To oppose social justice must be support for social injustice. Who would dare do that?
The first line of Wikipedia’s entry on social justice states.: “Social justice is the fair and just relation between the individual and society.“ Any definition that relies on two totally ambiguous words isn’t a good start. “Fair” and “just,” like beauty exist only in the eye, or mind, of the beholder. That which is fair and just to one may be oppression and tyranny to others.
Today’s social justice crusaders lean heavily on the claim that social justice decrees that individuals are entitled to certain things, such as medical services, education, and housing. There is no limit on what can be added to the list.
Calling such entitlements social justice is supposed to ward off nasty questions. No one is supposed to ask why the entitlement exists, or who will pay for it. Social justice might be best described as armor for bad ideas. The armor doesn’t do a thing to improve the idea.
We only have two things for our use, unprocessed natural resources and human effort. Everything else is produced by combining these two resources. Most natural resources aren’t very useful before they are processed with human effort.
Everything we have is a product of human effort. Even the air you breathe isn’t of much use unless you expend your energy inhaling it.
Calling something an entitlement doesn't bring it into existence. People must produce it. If the person using the entitlement doesn’t produce it, or produce something to trade for it, someone else must.
Unless someone volunteers to produce or pay for the entitlement, someone must be forced to produce it or pay for it. Forcing someone to serve another is involuntary servitude, also called slavery.
Those who advocate entitlements are calling for slavery. Calling entitlements social justice is at the most a thin mask for slavery.
Anyone who wants to advocate slavery is free to do so. They shouldn’t expect sympathy when they crawl off to a safe space to avoid the criticism they earned. Neither should they expect the taxpayers, or anyone else, to pay for the safe space. In other words, safe space isn’t an entitlement.
A true human right must be equally available to everyone. Anything that forces one to serve another can’t be a universal right. It is only a special privilege that forces some to serve others.
The only right that can be shared by all is liberty. Everyone can be free to live as they choose and interact with those who are willing. Freedom doesn’t include the right to commit aggression against anyone. Aggression destroys the freedom of the victims.
Individuals charitably using their own wealth do far more good than politicians and bureaucrats doling out wealth seized from others. Some wealthy people claim they aren’t paying enough tax. If they really believed that, they would shut up and start writing checks.
Life will never be completely fair and just by anyone’s definition. Voluntary cooperation will produce more fairness and justice than will ever come from “do it my way or I will hurt you” government. Totalitarian politicians will disagree with this conclusion.
* * * * *
* * * *
* * *