Posts
I hear a lot of terms that sound pretty good at the outset. Phrases like ‘social justice,’ ‘sustainability,’ ‘equality,’ and ‘fairness.’ And I am quickly discovering that what I would assume these things would mean are not what they actually mean to the folks using them.
Social Justice for example, is a drive for equal outcomes for all people regardless of talent, ambition and effort. It is not an equal opportunity for all to use their talent, ambition and effort to create an outcome for themselves.
It is not social justice when you or I or the other guy ends up with more stuff than each other. It is social justice when this inequality of stuff occurs, to use the government to take it and spread it around to those with less.
I don’t see that definition of social justice as just. I don’t see how living in a society were I can’t have more or less than someone else based on my efforts, talents and ambitions is good for the society at large, let alone for the individual. I do not want to live in a world such as Van Jones[i] describes as socially justice[ii].
Van describes social justice as being completely comfortable in having your life thrown in a big hat with everyone else’s and being completely comfortable with drawing out someone else’s life because it is exactly as good as yours.
Everyone has the same amount of stuff. If everyone doesn’t have the same amount of stuff, then laws have to be enacted to ensure that those with more forfeit it to those with less. Blatant abuse of property rights lead to justice?
I suppose what I find so immoral about social justice as it is laid out by this definition is the removal of reward for applying your talents, ambitions and effort by applying social justice as a means to ensure all have the same stuff, regardless of circumstances. Regardless of whether you work hard or don’t work at all. It doesn’t matter. And that is true injustice for all.
Found this on SlapBlog.com and thought it interesting.
Found this on SlapBlog.com and thought it interesting.
The Grasshopper and the Ant NEW VERSION . . . (sad but true)
The ant works hard, in the withering heat, all summer long.He builds his house and stores supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks that the ant is a fool. He laughs, dances and plays the summer away, preparing nothing for the coming winter.
America is stunned by the sharp contrast! How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer this way?
Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah, with the grasshopper.
Everyone cries when they sing “It’s Not Easy Being Green”.
Jesse Jackson stages a demonstration in front of the ant’s house, where the news stations film the group singing “We Shall Overcome”. Jesse then has the group pray for the grasshopper’s sake, and reminds the group to contribute to his group, so that he can “continue the fight” for grasshoppers, everywhere!
Ted Kennedy & John Kerry exclaim, in an interview with Tom Brokaw, that the ant has gotten rich, off the back of the poor grasshopper! Both call for an immediate tax hike, to make the ant pay “his fair share”! Finally, the EEOC drafts the “Economic Equity For Grasshoppers Act”, retroactive to the beginning of the summer. The ant is fined for failing to hire the proportionate number of green bugs and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his house is confiscated by the government.
Hillary Clinton gets her old law firm to represent the grasshopper, in a defamation suit against the ant. The case is tried in federal court, with a jury comprised of unemployed welfare recipients. Surprise! The ant loses the case! The story ends, as we see the grasshopper finishing up the last bits of the ant’s food, while the government house he lives in (which happens to be the ant’s old house) crumbles around him, due to lack of maintenance!
The ant has disappeared in the snow. The grasshopper is found, dead, in a drug-related incident. The house, now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of spiders, who terrorize this once-peaceful neighborhood. The moral of this version? Don’t vote for Democrats or liberals.
[ii] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_-vgtYkJdA Van Jones Social Justice video
6 comments:
I agree with your criticism of loose definitions of social justice. But, the idea is not a new one. It goes back to the Old Testament. From a Christian perspective, social justice means society takes care of their most vulnerable. It's a concept that reflects the character of God. http://bit.ly/OTsocialjustice
It means redistribution of wealth by government force. It just sounds nicer.
Tyson,
The point is that Christians can delude themselves into thinking that 'social justice' is founded on OT and Christian principles but the key word in the foregoing is "delude". No where in either the OT or NT is the promotion of equal outcomes made by God. No where.
So while one may think their version of 'social justice' reflects the character of God please do not be deluded into thinking that is what the Van Jones and his ilk mean by the term. Once you embrace a term make sure you know how it is used outside of one's own idiosyncratic understanding and use.
And, as a final note, the OT and NT talk about "justice" and that is all Christians or Jews should embrace. Not social justice, simply justice.
Social justice is nothing more than sophistry used by the ruling elite to justify their violation of basic individual rights.
There is only one "social justice" and that is the recognition of individual rights since that is the only philosophy that treats everyone as equals.
An individual or group, in our society, has the right to choose how they are going to live their life. What I don't get is why I should have no say on whether or not I want to pick up the pick up the bill.
In our church people bring food items each week to be given out to those in need. We have other programs to help those who have fallen on hard times through no fault of their own. The principle of sharing what we have with those in need indeed does come from the teaching of scripture. Scripture teaches to love our neighours and love is not passive - a warm fuzzy feeling. The example is from God himself - that God so loved the world that he GAVE his only begotten Son. We don't give because we must to it, but because of our love for God and our neighbour.
Post a Comment