There’s a lot of talk over the last few years about Social Justice but what exactly do people mean when they use that phrase? It seems to be a catch-all phrase for a more just society which, most would agree, is a good thing. The problem arises when the next question is asked; what is your definition of a just society? For most people justice entails equality under the law and a degree of social engineering to provide equality of opportunity. In this context equality of opportunity means access to education and state services for the poor and those with disabilities (both physical and intellectual) etc.
The problem that I have with the concept of social justice is it seeks not only to engineer equality of opportunity (everyone gets a chance to do well through hard work) but it also seeks to engineer equality of outcome (everyone ends up with the same even if they don’t bother trying). In simple terms it’s communist; “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need”.
The phrase Social Justice was first coined by Jesuit Luigi Taparelli around 160 years ago, based on the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas. Men like Father Charles Coughlin, the 1930’s era American Catholic priest who used radio to preach his message of communism, racism and support for fascism, was also a strong exponent of Social Justice. Giving something a nice name and wrapping it up in a bow doesn’t change what it is. Social Justice requires a very high level of income redistribution (and property redistribution) and that requires a very high level of state involvement in people’s lives. I don’t think that’s a good idea.
A society that does not strive for equality of opportunity and provide a basic social safety net is doomed to fail.
A society that does not strive to allow its citizens to retain the majority of the fruits of their own labour is also doomed to fail.
Put simply, there’s a balance to be struck.
In the 1760’s Jean-Jacques Rousseau published “The Social contract” which, for the first time, theorised that the people were sovereign; it was from them collectively that the state drew it’s authority and power rather from a divinely anointed Monarch. It was possible the most influential document of the last 1000 years and led to the American Revolution and inspired the men who spent 5 months in Connecticut writing the US constitution. It also inspired the French revolution shortly after and in a few years between 1788 and 1800 it had changes the world. In short it is the intellectual bedrock that all modern democratic republics are built on. Once we shift the balance from a position where the people tell the state what to do it a position where the state tells the people what to do we move away from the ideals of a republican democracy.
Social Justice, as defined by the men who coined and then developed the phrase, is incompatible with the principles of a modern liberal democracy.
The problem that I have with the concept of social justice is it seeks not only to engineer equality of opportunity (everyone gets a chance to do well through hard work) but it also seeks to engineer equality of outcome (everyone ends up with the same even if they don’t bother trying). In simple terms it’s communist; “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need”.
The phrase Social Justice was first coined by Jesuit Luigi Taparelli around 160 years ago, based on the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas. Men like Father Charles Coughlin, the 1930’s era American Catholic priest who used radio to preach his message of communism, racism and support for fascism, was also a strong exponent of Social Justice. Giving something a nice name and wrapping it up in a bow doesn’t change what it is. Social Justice requires a very high level of income redistribution (and property redistribution) and that requires a very high level of state involvement in people’s lives. I don’t think that’s a good idea.
A society that does not strive for equality of opportunity and provide a basic social safety net is doomed to fail.
A society that does not strive to allow its citizens to retain the majority of the fruits of their own labour is also doomed to fail.
Put simply, there’s a balance to be struck.
In the 1760’s Jean-Jacques Rousseau published “The Social contract” which, for the first time, theorised that the people were sovereign; it was from them collectively that the state drew it’s authority and power rather from a divinely anointed Monarch. It was possible the most influential document of the last 1000 years and led to the American Revolution and inspired the men who spent 5 months in Connecticut writing the US constitution. It also inspired the French revolution shortly after and in a few years between 1788 and 1800 it had changes the world. In short it is the intellectual bedrock that all modern democratic republics are built on. Once we shift the balance from a position where the people tell the state what to do it a position where the state tells the people what to do we move away from the ideals of a republican democracy.
Social Justice, as defined by the men who coined and then developed the phrase, is incompatible with the principles of a modern liberal democracy.