The injustice of “social justice” 5

The Left is intensely immoral, as unabashedly unscrupulous as a wild beast. It will shamelessly blacken the name of anybody it perceives as a danger to it with baseless lies. Example: Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, publicly announced that the Republican candidate for the presidency in 2008, Mitt Romney, had not paid his taxes.

The Left will sacrifice any number of people, destroy their hopes, their health, their lives, if in their calculation doing so might give them an advantage. Example: Far-left President Obama is drawing tens of thousands of children over the Mexican border – to become, he hopes, future voters for his Party – by announcing that children who are in the US as illegal aliens will not be deported. All the children suffer. Many are ill. Some die.

The Left will deprive a law-abiding citizen, with armed force, of everything he has striven for in the name of some new oppressive regulation it has suddenly launched with a dim ideological end in view such as “environmental protection”. Example: A man who made a pond is being fined $75,000 a day by the EPA for doing just that, on the absurd grounds that the little stretch of water on his property is contaminating a river miles away.

These are just three examples, picked at random from the top of our composite editorial head, of present-day Leftist immorality in America. (How to choose from among the misdemeanors of the Clintons? An embarrasment of riches!) ) The theme of the Left’s iniquity is so vast that volumes could be written about it, and have been. In other countries, Leftist powers have committed mass-murder on an unimaginable scale by poison-gas, firing-squad, torture, overwork, and deliberate starvation.

And what compounds the evil and swells the monstrousness of it all is that they do it  in the name of compassion. Their aim, they claim, is to better the lot of the the underdog. They will make the poor richer by taking riches from the rich and giving them to the poor until all are materially and socially equal. They do not want the only form of equality that is just – equality before the law. It offends them, they say (even the richest among them, and most of them are rich) to see inequality between the richest and the poorest.

With them, equality  is not a moral principle but an aesthetic one.

They call the ideal of it “social justice“.

Paul Mirengoff writes at PowerLine, in part commenting on an article by Peter Wehner defending “social justice” (though Wehner is not a Leftist):

Justice has always been understood in our tradition as justice for the individual, qua individual. When a person goes to court, either in a criminal or a civil case, our system strives to provide him with a result that is fair given what he has done or failed to do. This is what we understand justice to be. Thus, when we say that justice should be blind, we mean that it should be rendered without regard to a person’s social status and without regard to the demands of this or that social agenda.

If justice is an individual-centric concept, then there is no room for the concept of social justice. The pursuit of social justice may lead to action that is consistent with justice, for example a non-discrimination statute. But the concept of “social justice” isn’t required to justify such a law; nor is it invoked to do so, since arguments for simple justice are always more persuasive (for example, the sponsors of the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 took pains to assure the nation, probably disingenuously in some cases, that the law would preclude racial preferences).

The pursuit of social justice may also lead to action that is inconsistent with justice, such as granting racial preferences or expropriating someone’s property for “the greater good”. Such action is not justice, but rather justice’s antithesis. Thus, we should object when it is marketed as “social justice”. 

In sum, the concept of social justice has no value. In the first scenario, it is superfluous; in the second, it is false advertising.

[Peter] Wehner argues that “any society that fails to dispense some measure of sympathy and solicitude to others, particularly those living in the shadows and who are most vulnerable to injustice, cannot really be a good society”.  I agree. But vulnerability to injustice can be countered by the rigorous pursuit of simple justice. And sympathy and solicitude can be dispensed under these labels, rather than as a form of justice.

Wehner recognizes this when he concludes: “Whether this effort travels under the banner of social justice or some other name, to do justice and to love mercy is what is required of us, as individuals and as a society”. But the banner under which the charitable project travels matters.

When it travels under the banner of social justice, it gains extra moral authority that it does not deserve. The genuine tension between our desire to do justice (as commonly understood) and to be merciful is elided because justice is subsumed under mercy.

The result will be confusion and mischief, such as the aforementioned racial preferences and expropriation of property for “the greater good”. If rationalized as “social justice”, such components of the redistributionist project become entitlements, not favors to be granted, if at all, in small doses and under limited circumstances.

As [Friedrich] Hayek, who (as Wehner notes) deplored the concept of social justice, understood, therein lies the road to serfdom.

Besides, we cannot believe that devotees of the Left (once grown out of the ignorant idealism of adolescence) give a fig for “sympathy”, “solicitude”, or “mercy”. If they did they would take pains to find out what economic system really does better the lot of the poor (namely, the free market); and they wouldn’t repeat as they do that “the end justifies the means” – their excuse for sacrificing any number of their fellow human beings.

In fact many of them have dropped even the pretense of sympathizing with human beings. The victims of their “compassion” were first the proletarians. Then, as the proletarians in the Western world became too prosperous (because they had a degree of freedom) to qualify as pretexts for vast destruction, they focused on the lumpenproletariat. That class also became too well-off to care about. So then they moaned about the lot of  “women” – by which they meant feminists – and people of unconventional sexual preferences. Many of them moved on to animals. But their ever-restless avant-garde did not stop there. They are now working to sacrifice more people than ever before on the grounds that it will be good for the wilderness, for rocks and stones, and even the vast, spinning, molten-cored planet – the ultimate victim of “social injustice”. (See our post, Fresh wild raw uninhabited world, January 2, 2012.)

It would be enormously laughable as a theory, if it wasn’t colossally tragic as historical and contemporary reality.

  • liz

    It’s almost incomprehensible how people can lie in this way, without ever having the slightest twinge of conscience.
    Does it never occur to them that if you have to lie about every part of your agenda, there might possibly be something wrong with it?
    They have crossed over from being rational to rationalizing everything.
    In the same way a Christian stops thinking, and simply credits God with everything as an automatic response no matter what happens (if one survives a disaster, it’s by the grace of God. If one doesn’t, it was his judgement), leftists rationalize and lie as an automatic response to every thing, whether it makes sense or not (if people die in Africa, it’s the fault of evil capitalists, not because they banned DDT, or used up all the corn for ethanol. If they survive, it’s because of windmills or something.)
    If Muslims kill people, it’s not because they are barbaric savages, but because they’ve been deprived of social justice.
    They no longer think; their brains are on autopilot.

    • Bruce

      Agreed. when I see the far right and the far left going at each other, I don’t see good versus evil. What I see is more akin to the Bloods and Crips fighting over a street corner for drug sales. One peddles the meth of government dependency, while the other peddles the crack of religious slavery and willful ignorance.

      • But one thing is this, Bruce: The Democratic Party has moved AS A WHOLE to the far left. The Republican Party still has many voters (if not leaders) who are NOT religious nuts and bigots.

  • Don L

    Thought…the left can never survive thinking.

    If you cannot describe what fractional reserve central banking is…you are the stooge of the left.

    For more than 110 years the left has been able to keep the truth of central reserve central banking from the populace.

    If you have any ability to interact with anyone…ask them if they know what fractional reserve central banking is. If they say no…tell them that it is the basic of the entire American economic system. The ask, how is it they don’t know what it is and how then is it they think they can actually have any opinion about the economy?

    So…I dare all those who show up here always foisting an opinion: describe what fractional reserve central banking is and how it impacts the economy. If you can’t…talk is cheap!

    Everything the left accomplishes happens because of fractional reserve central banking.

    Really, if you cannot explain it…you’re just flotsam.

    The left survives because fractional reserve central banking funds it…

    Freedom is justice…social justice is lefty for die you assholes!

    • REALBEING

      Don, Just a couple of items……the Left can never survive CRITICAL thinking. They will not critically think simply because they serve the twin “Gods” of Socialism…….Politics and Manipulation.

      As far as ‘Fractional reserve banking’ goes I feel that it is only another tool these losers use which is a part of their ‘Manipulation God.’

      One major trait which one can identify them is by the way they complicate anything which normally is fairly simple in nature.

      They need things to be this way in order to manipulate.