ROMNEY WORDWORTH – Social Justice. “Social justice” is a leftist idea that stands for the proposition that you have a right to take someone else’s property if you have a need for it. The term “social justice” was coined by a Jesuit priest, Luigi Taparelli, in 1840. The idea was expanded by the theologian, John A. Ryan, who started the concept of a “living wage.” A “living wage”, which is fairly interchangeable with the phrase “just wage” and “economic justice”, is the idea that people should be paid what they need to live, regardless of what they actually do for a job. The minimum wage laws we have today arise from this concept.
Wikipedia defines “social justice” as follows:
“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. 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.”
Normally I am cautious of using a source such as Wikipedia, but in this case I am confident that if the Communists, the Socialists, the Liberals, and all of the rest on the Left were not happy with the definition appearing on Wikipedia, it would have been changed to their liking by now. They are nothing if not persistent in their propaganda. So I consider the Wikipedia definition to be in the Left’s own word.
You will note that “social justice” is not the same as equal justice. Equal justice is based on the Natural Law discussed in my previous columns. It is consistent with the idea that we are all created by God with equal rights, and that we all have an equal right to be treated in the same way by our governing laws, without regard to our social or economic station. The concept of equal justice is the foundation upon which the American legal code is based, which in turn was derived from the Law of Moses. Equal justice for all is what is required under the Moral Law.
The Moral Law (Natural Law) is God’s standard of rightness. This standard of rightness is the very nature of God himself—infinite justice and infinite love.
Examples of “social justice” abound. The definition of social justice quoted above admits that the progressive income tax is an example of “social justice”. The progressive income tax, you will recall, was one of the goals listed in the Communist Manifesto. The definition above also admits to a redistribution of property, of opportunity, and to “manufacture” an equality of outcomes where unequal outcomes are produced by an otherwise procedurally just system. Other objectives in the Communist Manifesto were also designed to do the same thing, such as abolishing private property rights and the right of inheritance. This is what it means to “equalize opportunity”. Confiscatory taxes on income and inheritance also “manufactures equal outcomes”.
Affirmative action is “social justice”. It skews equal opportunity. The problem is it requires that the law treat some people in a favored, privileged manner, not in an equal manner. Affirmative action requires Justice to remove her blindfold, the same as the income tax system does.
The Progressive Movement has long advocated for a Maximum Wage law in this country. It was advocated by Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Elizabeth Warren, and Bernie Sanders. All of these are “progressives” who want the government to confiscate your earnings and keep everyone at the same level.
In other words, “social justice” ends up being “from each according to their ability, to each according to their need”. It is just the same old communism dressed up as a moral argument. The problem, of course, is that it is actually an immoral argument. It is immoral to take property that doesn’t belong to you. It is slavery to demand a right to the labor of others. Finally, such a principle of radical egalitarianism always, always, requires violence to enforce, whether from a mob or a tyrannical government.
The “Occupy Wall Street” movement demands “social justice”. They want people to occupy empty houses owned by banks. The same protestors want to organize a mortgage payer strike against the banks, and they call that social justice too. The banks are rich and people can’t make their mortgage payments. So they assert the right to live on the property without paying for it.
Social Justice Warriors are also demanding forgiveness of student loans. They need an education, and they want others to pay for it. Bernie Sanders is promising to make this happen. Isn’t it interesting that these protestors never protest against the Universities who have jacked up tuition at four times the rate of inflation? According to InflationData.com:
“College tuitions soar each year, advancing far in excess of the inflation rate. The overall inflation rate since 1986 increased 107.05%, which is why we pay more than double for everything we buy. On the other hand, during the same time, tuition increased a whopping 466.80%”
It is leftwing professors who are exhorting the students to go protest the banks. It apparently never occurs to the useful idiots that it is the colleges who are really to blame for their high debt loads, not their lending institutions. The universities represent a seat of power for the Progressive movement in America. University faculties are now dominated by Progressives and other, even more radical, leftists. Apparently “social justice” has its limits, depending on who the target is.
It is also curious that none of these protests ever happen in Washington D.C., where government decisions have the most impact on student loans. It is the Obama regime that recently had the Federal government take over the student loan business, so why aren’t the protestors outside of the White House? It is the government making the loans now and the government that holds the debt. Instead, the protestors are demanding the re-election of Barack Obama. Odd that the politician who has collected the most donor money from Wall Street than any others in our nation’s history, combined, would hold such support for those wishing to destroy the Wall Street bankers.
Barack Obama allowed a rule change in debt collection which will allow private debt collectors to call the cell phones of debtors who owe money to the government. This is specifically targeted at student loan debtors who aren’t paying on their loans, doubtless because there are no jobs to be had in our over-taxed economy. Again, the targets of this protest movement are highly selective, betraying its orchestration by leftwing labor unions.
When you see a “flash mob” ransack a mom & pop store; that is “social justice” in action. When you saw the rioters in the U.K. burning down stores, and looting them of flat screen TV’s and expensive running shoes, that was “social justice” in action too. Come to think of it, when someone gets mugged on the street, that’s “social justice” too.
“Social Justice” is a dangerous ideology based on the twin sins of envy and thievery. “Social Justice” is a high minded sounding excuse to do what we know in our hearts to be wrong.
Do you have a job? Live in a house? Then you are “the Rich” too. New York Magazine polled the “Occupy Wall Street” protestors. The most popular poll answer: “Burn it all down.” These people are anarchists. They aren’t interested in fixing the problems, or coming up with a better system that can replace the old system. They just want to destroy. The media is promoting this movement. Hollywood is glamorizing it. They have chosen sides.
If their goal is to ultimately bring down the banks and destroy our banking system, then what happens to your money when they do? Roseanne Barr was quoted calling for bringing back the guillotine and beheading bankers, and anyone else who won’t share their wealth.
Social Justice is communism; and violence, brutality, and death camps are always where this road ends.
This generation is going to decide if America survives as we know it, as a Republic that guarantees the freedom of the individual. The next Federal election will be the one that decides if the United States continues to exist as a Republic.