by Kent McManigal
In the recent past I have seen more and more mentions of “social justice” from people calling themselves “libertarians”. I have looked into it a bit in the past, but decided it was time to really give it an examination. After doing so I discovered something important: Ain’t no such critter as “social justice”. Sorry.
Of course, it looks good at first glance:
” (From Wikipedia
*) “… justice exercised within a society, particularly as it is exercised by and among the various social classes of that society. A socially just society is based on the principles of equality and solidarity, understands and values human rights, and recognizes the dignity of every human being.
That part sounds pretty good, other than the delusional belief that there are “classes” of people. And I might want to find out just how they define this “society” thing- I have seen some doozies there, too.
Justice, real justice
, involves returning a person who has been stolen from or attacked to their pre
-violation condition- or as close as possible. I see no evidence of anyone being stolen from or attacked here. Unless it is by the rulers
and their BS rules
(yet just who
is supposed to be enforcing this “social justice” other than those rulers
Of course, there is no such thing as “equality” other than the equality of the rights
each individual is born with. Those rights are identical
in each and every individual human being.
And, what’s this “solidarity” they speak of? I can’t have “solidarity” with someone who is attacking innocent people
or stealing from others
. Or advocating that someone else do either of those evil
things on their behalf. Now, someone who is
being robbed or attacked, I can have “solidarity” with- and try to come to their aid- but not
by harming those who weren’t
doing the attacking or robbing. That’s justinsane
I’ve also never met an advocate of “social justice” who actually “understands and values human rights“.
I have met and read some who make up all sorts of “positive rights” [sic
]that violate the right to not be a slave to any other person. And, there is no “dignity” in living that way- not for the victim of the slavery, nor for those feeding on it.
So, perhaps the pretty words are rather empty. Let’s examine a bit farther…
“Social justice is based on the concepts of human rights and equality and involves a greater degree of economic egalitarianism through progressive taxation, income redistribution, or even property redistribution.”
So, advocating and carrying out blatant theft– as long as you steal a larger percentage from those who have more to steal-
will somehow fulfill all the wishes in that first quoted part? I don’t think so. In fact it completely violates every single thing
they claim “social justice” to embrace. Collectivism is so
The evil continues:
“These policies aim to achieve what developmental economists refer to as more equality of opportunity than may currently exist in some societies, and to manufacture equality of outcome in cases where incidental inequalities appear in a procedurally just system.
I’m sorry, gentle thieves, but where there is no “equality of opportunity” the best way to fix that problem
is by eliminating “legal” red tape, cronyism, and regulation (all the crap that plops out of The State
‘s orifice); not
by giving the ones who create the problem more
power to steal more.
And, “equality of outcome
“? You’ve GOT
to be kidding! The only way to achieve this is by killing
everyone. Some risks pay off; some don’t. Some people are smarter than others, luckier than others, or just have better skills or timing. That’s reality
whether you like it or not. It might not be “fair” according to your childish daydreams, but as Scott Adams says
, fairness is “a concept invented so dumb people could participate in arguments
Just because the methods some would employ to achieve a stated goal are disgusting doesn’t automatically invalidate the goal itself… but in this case even the goal doesn’t hold up to scrutiny or rational evaluation. Nope, I’m done with the idiotic religion of “social justice”. Pursue it if you want, but it is not
ideal and if you try to use theft or coercion
to impose it, I will
*Yes, I am aware of the limitations of relying too heavily on Wikipedia, so I also looked at other sources such as this one
, this one
, and this one
– but at the core, they all advocated the same thing:“equality” through theft