RoR: Forum

Repugnant.

Given this quote, exactly what does "social justice" mean?

I scanned the linked article and located no formal definition.

Evidently the term means whatever its users "feel" it means -- much as Libertarian Party members use "liberty" in whatever way they "feel" it means -- even when those definitions radically clash with each other.

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 5/28, 11:58am)

Post 1

Monday, May 28, 2012 - 12:27pm

Currently, Obama, Hillary, and George Soros are hoping to use a lame duck congress for a strong push to bind the US in treaties that diminish soveirnty, to side-step the constitution, or to be more accurate, to use the constitution to make the treaties near impossible to escape.

And the treaties take the decision making in various area out of the American system and put it in the hands of the United Nations, or some other international agency.

This push towards global governance is the way these particular progressives see themselves as accomplishing their goals of social justice... until now they couldn't do it because America was in the way of globally effected social justice, and the constitution was in the way of transforming America. Its like Marxist Judo - use the strength of the opponent against them. Get the useful liberal idiots in the Senate to ratify treaties that Obama, Hillary and Soros worked on and negotiated in secret. The constitution gives any ratified treaty the authority of constitutional law.

What is social justice? Well, in the case of the Law of the Seas Treaty coming up next month in the Senate... it is whatever the 160 countries, who have already signed it, say it is. Obama has already signed it, and we are just a Senate's vote away from it being the law of our land.

One of the clauses in the treaty gives 50% of US oil royalties from far offshore drilling to that agency made up of representatives of those 160 nation. That's the agency which which will redistribute the wealth - but we shouldn't worry, we will have one vote out of those 160. By the way, the agency will be able to decide what regulations need to be passed to prevent any form of pollution whose effects might be seen in the oceans.

Post 2

Monday, May 28, 2012 - 1:05pm

I wonder what they mean by "economically successful authoritarian or elitist societies." It'd be neat to be able to get them, in the interest of public accountability, to provide a list of such societies, so that we could objectively examine whether they simultaneously are:

1) economically successful
2) authoritarian or elitist

Does anyone out there have even a clue as to which countries they might have in mind?

And it's also refreshing to learn that "believers in an absolute truth identified with virtue and justice" are not "desirable companions" to the UN. This means that I can take the UN off of my Christmas card list -- as that hypothetical, undesirable companionship runs both ways. It's good to know where you stand, and it's good to know who stands against you (it's good to identify your ideological enemies).

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 5/28, 1:07pm)

Post 3

Tuesday, May 29, 2012 - 12:39pm

Okay, I'm trying to understand this quote, but I think I must be missing something. Like, everything.

Sociologists may contend that excessive income inequality restricts social mobility and leads to social segmentation and eventually social breakdown, but other social scientists counter this argument with examples of economically successful authoritarian or elitist societies.

So... excessive income inequality presupposes an 'authoritarian or elitist' society? Where's the evidence for that? Or is the term 'elitist society' defined as "a society with excessive income inequality," regardless of how authoritarian or libertarian its political structure? That seems to be stacking the deck.

Arguments founded on moral fairness are easily disposed of in an atmosphere of moral relativism and cultural pluralism. Present-day believers in an absolute truth identified with virtue and justice are neither willing nor desirable companions for the defenders of social justice.

Is this an argument for or against moral/cultural relativism? It looks like it could be intended as a condemnation of 'defenders of social justice' as much as an attack on 'believers in an absolute truth'. What is the author's position?

I don't have time to go through this whole screed right now, but a quick skim leads me to believe it's defending a conception of 'social justice' as 'distributive justice', a la a globalized version of the European Social Democrat model. Do I have that right?

The popular contention that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer appears to be largely based on fact, particularly within the present global context.

On a person-to-person level, this simply isn't true, at least not in relatively free societies. In most of the Western world, the rich get richer and the poor get richer; the 'income gap' may widen when they don't improve at the same rate - but that doesn't mean that everyone isn't doing better (I've heard most people living below the poverty line in the US, for instance, have plenty of food and color televisions, to boot).

Of course, I wouldn't be surprised if the rich are getting richer and the poor poorer in a number of third-world dictatorships - but it appears that the difference in political systems doesn't play much of a role in typical evaluations of 'social justice'.

This cracks me up:

Extreme poverty and the suffering it entails affect a large proportion of humankind, and major efforts by Governments and international organizations to reduce or eradicate poverty have thus far failed to produce the desired results.

The Government(s) tried to solve a problem, and failed? The devil you say!

Post 4

Tuesday, May 29, 2012 - 2:18pm

The Government(s) tried to solve a problem, and failed? The devil you say!

Good one, Luke.

Don't you wonder sometimes, just how unobservant people can be, and scientists no less, to not notice that historically long-standing and quite consistent relationship between poverty and governments? This simple relationship: more government = more poverty, less government = less poverty. Guess that's just too complex for today's social scientists to grasp!

(Edited by Steve Wolfer on 5/29, 2:19pm)

Post 5

Tuesday, May 29, 2012 - 7:27pm

Luke M.,

Good insights.

Is this an argument for or against moral/cultural relativism? It looks like it could be intended as a condemnation of 'defenders of social justice' as much as an attack on 'believers in an absolute truth'. What is the author's position?

It's a pragmatist's argument. Pragmatists don't explicitly stand for anything, but instead stand behind others' beliefs (what Rand called being a "second-hander") -- while trying to twist the interpretation of those beliefs around in order to get what they secretly (un-explicitly) want. They deal with a largely hidden agenda or an ulterior motive, and they hide their feelings behind public opinion polls that are twisted in order to support their raw feelings. The author's official position is thus that moral/cultural relativism is true or real (because the argument from social metaphysics "says so"). They believe that relativism is true ... because (enough) others believe it is true.

... a quick skim leads me to believe it's defending a conception of 'social justice' as 'distributive justice', a la a globalized version of the European Social Democrat model. Do I have that right?

Bingo! If one quote didn't solidify that conclusion in your mind, then perhaps 4 more will:

(1)

The spirit of free enterprise was also bridled in a few of the countries with socialist or social democratic regimes, but there is certainly no evidence that it suffered in liberal democracies with free markets and solid redistributive policies.

(2)

Social justice is not possible without strong and coherent redistributive policies conceived and implemented by public agencies. A fair, efficient and progressive taxation system ... allows a State to perform its duties ...

(3)

... it is generally accepted that greater financial participation is required from those with more resources at their disposal. This constitutes a sacrifice that in well-functioning liberal and social democratic societies is accepted as part of the social contract binding citizens together.

(4)

Redistributive ideas and practices are currently under attack. ... but there is no evidence yet of any socially, politically or economically viable alternative strategies.

Notice how in quote 1 the author says that you can have both a "free market" and "solid redistributive policies" at the same time in the same nation (without contradiction).

Notice how in quote 2 the authors says that you can have a taxation system that is both "fair" and "progressive" at the same time in the same nation (without contradiction).

Notice how in quote 3 the author leans particularly heavily on the ('second-hander') outcome of certain public opinion polls.

Now how in quote 4 the author accidentally shows that those very opinion polls are flawed, because much of the public is now literally railing against the official 'party line' of quote 3 (again, this is a contradiction that the author either doesn't see, or doesn't care to see).

Ed

Post 6

Wednesday, May 30, 2012 - 11:30am

here is the reference to that social contract again. replace social contract with trader principle and sacrifice with trade and progressive taxation with some sort of transaction tax on legitimate government society and you will have your fair system
(Edited by Michael Philip on 5/30, 11:37am)

Post 7

Tuesday, July 3, 2012 - 4:01pm