An introduction to social justice
I have not been blogging for a while... my bad. I will "get back on the horse".
I wanted to discuss the topic of social justice. Social justice is defined in two different ways these days. There are those who think social justice will be achieved when we have equal educational opportunities for all, equal access to social services (health care, pensions, etc.) or (on a more extreme side) even equality of outcomes. On the other hand are those who believe that social justice simply means equality before the law.
The two definitions of social justice are mutually exclusive. If the country is to practice the first theory of social justice (equal opportunity, etc.), then the government (or other agency designed to dispense social justice) necessarily has to treat those who are better off (have more opportunities) differently than those who it deems are "in need" of assistance. In other words, the government does not view all people as equals. It views some people as the chattel it uses to obtain resources and others as recipients of the redistributed "opportunities". The government does not start with the premise of "all people are equal" - think about it. If the government started with the premise of "all people are equal", then there would be no need for any form of redistribution of wealth or of opportunity. Those who support this theory of social justice do not want all men on an equal footing before the law. They want the law to be enforced differently for different people. Some will benefit from the law and others will have to pay the cost.
The other definition of social justice only treats people as equal before the law. Neither equality of opportunity nor equality of outcome are important. Essentially, this theory comes from the idea that mankind is not perfect in the execution of his judgment. If we were all perfect (and made perfect decisions), then our outcomes would all become equal in the long run. We are not perfect beings. Some people will make better decisions than others. Some people will make their own opportunities. The result is an unequal distribution of ideas, wealth, and chance. The unequal distribution of intelligence and the ability to put it to a productive use leads directly to inequality in "material terms". Where does the government fit in this realm? Its only role is to make all citizens equal in its eyes. It merely protects them from theft, fraud, or any kind of coerced wrong-doings. All citizens are equal in its eyes. What I mean to say is that all citizens are equally worthy of its protection. This theory of social justice does not benefit the many at the cost of a few. At the same time it does not benefit the few at the cost of the many. The government benefits all equally. As for who pays the cost, I will write a small blog on public finance in a free society shortly.
What kind of society would you like to live in? One where the government (and its use of force) can treat some people differently than others or one in which we are all looked upon as equal citizens?
The Matz