“Social Justice” Is Often a Rationalization for Injustice

The contemporary definition of “social justice” is that a self-selected elite chooses who gets robbed and who gets crumbs. Oh, and the self-selected elite always end up well-paid, like that destitute woman, Hillary Clinton.

From Gary North, “A Dialogue on Social Justice.”

What Is social justice? Economist Walter Williams has an answer.

“I keep what I earn, and you keep what you earn. If you believe that you deserve some of what I earn, please explain why.”

Dr. Williams is skeptical about the motives of those people and special-interest groups who demand that politicians and tenured bureaucrats be empowered by law to threaten violence against those who benefit from voluntary exchange, all in the name of collective justice. He is also skeptical about the results promised by the defenders of such intervention.

We live in an era in which voters have elected politicians who vote for programs of state intervention. People with badges and guns threaten those who prosper through exchange. Yet, lo and behold, economic inequality is still with us. But what we find is this: those who get very rich seem to be able to avoid the long arm of the law. In fact, they seem to be the beneficiaries of it. A century after the Progressive movement gained its greatest triumphs — the Federal Reserve System, the federal income tax, and the direct election of U.S. Senators — there is still economic inequality. The spiritual heirs of the Progressive offer a solution: more of the same.

Those of us who remain skeptical of the Progressives and their heirs propose a rollback of the power of the state.

If you get individual justice, there will be greater social justice. That is our position. We are beginning to get a hearing. Meanwhile, the West’s economy is in the hands of unelected central bankers and the few dozen major banks, which central banks represent. We are told that we need central banks in order to insure the independence of banking from politics. The defenders of social justice actually believe this — all in the name of mass democracy. What we have are the most powerful cartels in history: commercial banking cartels.

Consistency is not one of the strengths of those who defend social justice.

North illustrates the contrast between liberal believers and skeptics by writing out a conversation between the two sides. It is well worth reading.

Welfare is largely the modern plantation: Power-holders give those they see as “the rabble” just enough to keep them sedated, voting for those elites, and somewhat well-behaved as it relates to people outside their own communities.

Welfare has destroyed multiple generations, preventing them from deploying their God-given gifts and talents in order to serve the community and thereby succeed. So-called “Social Justice” incentivizes sloth, and disincentivizes productivity. Nothing could be a more toxic mix for humanity.

Stop voting for the crumbs, and let the resulting hunger drive you to succeed.