Is Social Justice Just? Why Income Inequality is Just [POLICYbrief]
Articles,  Blog

Is Social Justice Just? Why Income Inequality is Just [POLICYbrief]


Social justice is the idea that everybody
should be treated equal no matter what their virtue, no matter what their vices, no matter
how much they, let’s say, in economics, produce. They should all be the same. So the more secular social justice movement
is really animated primarily by this notion of equality, of, uh, equality of outcome,
uh, whether it’s economic, uh, outcome or whether it’s social outcome. But they want equality of outcome. It’s this altruistic idea that those who
create more, produce more, who make more, who have more, who have higher standing
for whatever reason, should sacrifice what they have or should be forced to sacrifice
what they have if the state deems that necessary. Social justice in unjust. It’s the opposite of justice. To demand equality of outcome is to demand
an injustice. It is demand that we take from those who produce,
who those who make, who those have justly have owned what they have, and give to those
who have not produced, who do not deserve the benefits or the income
or the wealth that is being taken. So social justice requires injustice in order
to be applied in the real world. In the real world, people who make a lot of
money, honestly, make a lot of money in a free market, deserve the wealth that they
have, and to take money from them, to demand money from them or even to guilt them into
giving money away is immoral and unjust. Every single one of us is different. Isn’t that a beautiful thing? And to force us to be equal can only be achieved
through violence, can only be achieved through force, can only be achieved by violating our
rights. The only way to make me and LeBron James
equal in basketball is to break his legs, and the only way to make me and Bill Gates
equal in wealth is to do the equivalent to Bill Gates, which is to take the wealth that
he has worked hard to earn. I think most of us should recognize the important
role that free will plays in our lives. Yes, genes play a role. Yes, who are parents are is important. What the environment we live in is important. But the most important thing, the most important
thing in an individual’s lives is the choices he makes. The only compelling argument for social justice
is to deny human nature. It’s to deny free will. Since we are not responsible for anything
we do, since nothing is really earned, then it’s not ours and i- it- it- it can be, then,
distributed and if it’s not really ours, then we haven’t earned it, and we don’t deserve
it, and there’s- the whole issue of morality, in a sense, is out the window, certainly of
individual morality. So the only obligation individuals have towards
one another in a social context is to respect the right of the other individual to live
their life free, free of coercion, free of force. So I have no right to infl- inflict or to-
to use force, to use coercion against any other individual in society. Other than that, I have no obligations outside
the obligations I choose to have.

9 Comments

  • Virtue Ethics Keep Reading!

    Paradox of value is not a paradox of fact (there is no paradox of fact). The question should be: Is taxation necessary? The answer is recursively, yes. Economics isn't everything. Deep stupid will react to this and say that I'm "deep state." Probably because I have been educated quite extraordinarily thanks to the "deep state." But, I am also really tired of the arrogance of privatization. If you want a civil war with pitch forks and belligerence, keep posting this crap with indifference.

    Why would anyone say that inequality is just? Like a just war is just? Oh, listen? I notice you have subtitles (which may be altruistic), but I think it's actually subversive. Why are you marketing such nonsense? No thank you!

    Pick your arguments well.

  • Virtue Ethics Keep Reading!

    Another thing: Ayn Rand's philosophy (an idealist ideology) conflates ego and science as if knowledge could be owned (which is more pragmatist than pseudo-"objectivist").

  • Rex Juglandorum

    Demanding that nobody starves, dies of curable diseases, is forced into certain life paths, or has to forgo basic pleasures and opportunities, no matter how able they are to monetize themselves to others seems altogether reasonable. You might call it the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Or something like that, I'm still working on the exact wording. I'd settle for that amount of equality, and we are nowhere near that level in America.

    And lol Bill Gates "earned" his billions? No one could possibly rightfully earn or deserve such an amount of wealth. It's patently absurd and an insult to our intelligence and decency.

  • Mike Kidd

    Complete and utter right wing crap that deliberately misrepresents the fundamental ideas of social justice, – exactly what you'd expect from this source.

  • Christian Frost

    "people who make a lot of money, deserve a lot of money". Think, for just one second, and realise that this is untrue. The entire premise of the argument, is untrue. Social justice is recognising that people do not always get what they "deserve". Social justice is about giving people the opportunity to get what they deserve.

  • Brendan Birdfield

    What a load of bollocks, firstly he takes his own made up definition of social justice, and secondly how is it just that a ceo should earn 300 times the income of normal workers, how is it just that the six richest people in America own as much wealth as the bottom 50 percent of the whole of America, justice my ass. No one is arguing that we should all earn the same

  • da Radi

    This is the greatest bullshit I ever heard wrapped in a presentation that makes it appear academic. Just google these terms and you will see that he is a right wing person deceiving you with wrong terminology. Shame on you!!

  • mike thais

    How do altruistic ideas compliment collectivist and co-op notions of non-consent community (ownership) trust?
    I'd believed "a man of ideas names his price" had this been of A. Rand. Advocate for her times…

  • Jam Bos

    no ownership actually means it all belongs to everyone, so everyone feels equal responsibility to use it sustainably and mindfully, rather than no one feeling that responsibility. Subtle erronious injections like this video's no ownership interpretation is how they indoctrinate you via, what sounds on the surface, noble and progressive ideas.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *