Markets in Everything: Degrees in "Social Justice"
Who knew? You can now get a college degree (bachelor's or master's) in "Social Justice," here are some examples:
2. Bachelor's degree in Social Justice at Hamline University.
4. Social Justice Education Concentration at University of Massachusetts Amherst.
HT: Mike K in the comments section of this recent CD post about Jonah Goldberg's new book.
73 Comments:
Explaining the Left:
Dennis Prager on "Social Justice"
This comment has been removed by the author.
Social Justice is nothing more than Justice.
If you leave off the social part, I imagine Che would have less problem with it.
Social Justice is nothing more than Justice.
No it's not. "Social justice" is code-word for "community activism" and "Marxism 101".
That being said, it is still little more than a "fad", and a very sad one at that too. All you have to see why it's a sad little fad of a couple of sad little professors, is to look at just how many students actually register for these programs. Miniscule.
Social Justice is nothing more than Justice.
No. It is a big scam in which some people try to fool voters into believing that groups have rights that trump those of individuals.
Didn't click on Dead Che's link, did you, hydra?
"Social Justice is nothing more than Justice." -- Hydra
"The trouble with "social justice" begins with the very meaning of the term. Hayek points out that whole books and treatises have been written about social justice without ever offering a definition of it. It is allowed to float in the air as if everyone will recognize an instance of it when it appears. This vagueness seems indispensable. The minute one begins to define social justice, one runs into embarrassing intellectual difficulties. It becomes, most often, a term of art whose operational meaning is, "We need a law against that." In other words, it becomes an instrument of ideological intimidation, for the purpose of gaining the power of legal coercion.
Hayek points out another defect of twentieth-century theories of social justice. Most authors assert that they use it to designate a virtue (a moral virtue, by their account). But most of the descriptions they attach to it appertain to impersonal states of affairs — "high unemployment" or "inequality of incomes" or "lack of a living wage" are cited as instances of "social injustice." Hayek goes to the heart of the matter: social justice is either a virtue or it is not. If it is, it can properly be ascribed only to the reflective and deliberate acts of individual persons. Most who use the term, however, ascribe it not to individuals but to social systems. They use "social justice" to denote a regulative principle of order; again, their focus is not virtue but power." ...
From this line of reasoning it follows that "social justice" would have its natural end in a command economy in which individuals are told what to do, so that it would always be possible to identify those in charge and to hold them responsible. This notion presupposes that people are guided by specific external directions rather than internalized, personal rules of just conduct. It further implies that no individual should be held responsible for his relative position. To assert that he is responsible would be "blaming the victim." It is the function of "social justice" to blame somebody else, to blame the system, to blame those who (mythically) "control" it. As Leszek Kolakowski wrote in his magisterial history of communism, the fundamental paradigm of Communist ideology is guaranteed to have wide appeal: you suffer; your suffering is caused by powerful others; these oppressors must be destroyed. We need to hold someone accountable, Hayek notes, even when we recognize that such a protest is absurd." -- Defining Social Justice, Michael Novak
The Catholic Church is especially rife with social justice. Ex: check out this link to the Catholic Newman Center at Univ of Arizona. Note the dumbass students in the picture celebrating the Marxist Zapatista movement:
http://www.uacatholic.org/socialjustice/
The Catholic Church is especially rife with social justice. Ex: check out this link to the Catholic Newman Center at Univ of Arizona. Note the dumbass students in the picture celebrating the Marxist Zapatista movement:
http://www.uacatholic.org/socialjustice/
Ironic given the fact that Catholic thinkers were the greatest developers of the Natural Law argument.
The Catholic Church is especially rife with social justice. -- Paul
"... the leaders of the American Catholic Church fell prey to a conceit that had long before ensnared a great many mainstream Protestants in the United States – the notion that public provision is somehow akin to charity – and so they fostered state paternalism and undermined what they professed to teach: that charity is an individual responsibility and that it is appropriate that the laity join together under the leadership of the Church to alleviate the suffering of the poor. In its place, they helped establish the Machiavellian principle that underpins modern liberalism – the notion that it is our Christian duty to confiscate other people’s money and redistribute it.
At every turn in American politics since that time, you will find the hierarchy assisting the Democratic Party and promoting the growth of the administrative entitlements state. At no point have its members evidenced any concern for sustaining limited government and protecting the rights of individuals. It did not cross the minds of these prelates that the liberty of conscience which they had grown to cherish is part of a larger package – that the paternalistic state, which recognizes no legitimate limits on its power and scope, that they had embraced would someday turn on the Church and seek to dictate whom it chose to teach its doctrines and how, more generally, it would conduct its affairs." -- American Catholicisms Pact With the Devil, Ricochet
Che,
Ironic, isn't it? High ranking elements within the Catholic church teamed up with Saul Alinsky in the early 70's to fund his factories that churned out community organizers by the thousands. They did so in part by creating the Catholic Campaign for Human Developments(CCHD) that to this day snookers unsuspecting parishioners into digging into their pockets for what they are led to believe are non-political poverty campaigns.
“I got my start as a community organizer working with mostly Catholic parishes on the Southside of Chicago that were struggling because the steel plants had closed. The Campaign for Human Development helped fund the project and so, very early on, my career was intertwined with the belief in social justice that is so strong in the Church.”
~Barack Obama
No one here has yet explained how, if justice is served, that it makes any difference if it is social justice, poliical justice, economic justice, racial justice, criminal justice, property justice, or international justice.
But let the word social pop up and it incurs all kinds of bad associations, so by all means lets make sure we stamp out all that social justice.
Hydra,
"But let the word social pop up and it incurs all kinds of bad associations, so by all means lets make sure we stamp out all that social justice."
I dunno, I guess you are not familiar with how the term is used as code by Leftists.
No one here has yet explained how, if justice is served, that it makes any difference if it is social justice, poliical justice, economic justice, racial justice, criminal justice, property justice, or international justice.
Ughh. Ok let's try something here. If I came to you and said, I want MY justice to be served, what would be your reaction? Will you say "oh ok, since you have the word justice in there, I'm guessing YOUR must be just as fine"
Now, what if I happened to be a Taliban from Kandahar. Would you still want MY justice to be applied to you?
If you said you wanted YOUR justice to be served, I would say you are a selfish cretin with no interest in true individual liberty.
If YOUR justice was served to you by a Taliban court under a Taliban constitution would you say it was just?
By bringing in the Taliban, are.t you concurring with the idea that all justice is social? After all if you were alone on an island, how could You be unjust?
That, by the way is the only way you can have YOUR very own justice. Otherwise, it has to be shared. A concept probably foreign to you.
I repeat the question: if justice is serverd, what matter the adjective?
You are free to disagree with the court, and agitate for change, but it seems to me that simply arguing that any and all justice with a particular adjective in front is automatically bad justice is not much of an argument.
"No one here has yet explained how, if justice is served, that it makes any difference if it is social justice, poliical justice, economic justice, racial justice, criminal justice, property justice, or international justice"...
Why its real simple why no one explains these 'supposedly' different forms of justice to you hydra, none of them exist in the real world...
Is this an admission that you are so naive as to believe in the existence of any that so called justice?
There isn't even 'justice' in the so called justice system and you should know why already...
It isn't about justice, its about law...
Right,, so if you were subject to Taliban law, that would be justice?
It isn't about justice, its about Law.
So what's your argument, juandos? That no law EVER resjustice in justice?
That your Ak47 ALWAYS results in justice? At least YOUR justice.
Are you now arguing against the constitution, as the basis of law, and therefore justice?
One more time.
However you define it, given that justice is served, why does the adjective that describes the law matter?
How is this conversation even possible? Maybe, Hydra is trying to be funny. Who knows!
Look guys, there are two recent posts here about the inanity of social justice. And there are dozens of responses, each h vying to be more pejorative about social justice.
I don't understand what gets you so agitated. I can accept the idea of various flavors of justice, just AZ I can flavors of ice cream. But if someone serves up strawberry poop, the problem isn't that it is strawberry, the problem is that it isn't ice cream.
By focusing on the strawberry, you have missed the point. So we have a definition for ice cream: if it is insufficient isn't butter fat, then it is ice milk, or sherbert, but it is still strawberry.
So the question here is how to define ice cream ( justice), not what is wrong with strawberry ice cream or social justice.
Im glad you think justice is a laughing matter.
Look, if I was some raving liberal, I would be over on the liberal blog, doing what you clowns do here: repeating cliches, engaging in group think and congratulating each other on our brilliance.
I come here, posit a pretty simple question, and get anything except an answer, let alone one that makes sense. You guys have an agenda to sell, and I think you late doing a lousy job of promotion.
For what its worth, the bile spewing clowns on the other side are just as distasteful and equally unconvincing. Big oil, bank shysters, blah blah bah.
Present a vision of YOUR justice that you think someone else might accept as their own. Put forth a deal in which both sides think they win.
Yeah, I know. The liberals can't do it either.
"So what's your argument, juandos? That no law EVER resjustice in justice?"...
I'm sorry but I'm not sure what you mean by, "resjustice in justice"...
What are you trying to say there hydra?
"That your Ak47 ALWAYS results in justice? At least YOUR justice"...
LMAO!
That's NOT an AK-47 hydra, that's scoped M107 Barrett...
I don't know about justice coming out of the end of the barrel but if you hit your target with that puppy peace and quite are sure to follow...
"Are you now arguing against the constitution, as the basis of law, and therefore justice?"...
Take another look at the word justice...
"However you define it, given that justice is served, why does the adjective that describes the law matter?"...
Well that's simple hydra everyone has a different definition of the word justice depending on what point of view they're trying to push...
Hydra: Yes, the phrase sounds lovely. Just like "reasonable profits" and "equal opportunity".
Ok, so we agree that emotionally laden in ecyive is bad practice a d poor argumentation. So is the argument that " the other side does it too".
I don't agree that EVERYONE has a different definition. If that's the starting place, there is no point in having a conversation about anything. Just redefine a y way you like on the fly. Babylon reduce.
I do believe some fanatics will redefine anything to suit their view. People who only want THEIR justice.
Now your argument is that social justice is bad because tjereis no definition for justice?
Isn't this the argument that strawberry ice cream is bad. Because the ice cream might be poop. That her instinct is bad or meaningless because there is. No definition of instinct?
"I don't agree that EVERYONE has a different definition"...
Well who's fault it that hydra?
"Now your argument is that social justice is bad because tjereis no definition for justice?"...
Apparently you didn't read the definition for justice did you hydra?
'Social Justice' is merely pandering to societal debris...
Its a phrase used in the sales pitch to buy votes...
It isn't about justice, its about law...
We have a winner boys and girls. Our friend juandos gets it. When most people talk about justice they are just talking about laws passed by legislatures without giving much thought to the idea that those laws may not be just.
For a clear view of justice I refer you to the Theban plays, particularly Antigone, (417-705). As Antigone tells Creon, there are higher laws than the laws of the king. If that is a bit too esoteric an argument for you you can simply look at the Nuremberg Trials where men were executing even though they were complying with their own laws. A great debate abut justice can be found in The Republic but Plato is a bit too esoteric for most people.
I think that point is that there is no such thing as social justice because only individuals have rights and there are no sets of issues where one can justify trampling on the rights of some so that others can benefit.
So what's your argument, juandos?
Try learning a bit. A good place to start would be to look at the argument made by Thrasymachus in the Republic. Socrates won the argument not because his position was right but because he trapped Thrasymachus in a position where the pursuit of the argument would place his livelihood in jeopardy.
Herd instinct, not her instinct........grr.
Ok I will go re-read the Republic, I certainly do not recall the argument in question. but it sounds as if Socrates did not win the argument on its merits, but merely forced his opponent to retire.
.......................
If only individuals have rights, then that excludes corporations from any protection of law? A corporation has no rights to pursue justice under the law?
What if the corporation is planned parenthood.
If individuals have rights, do they have the right to associate, as in form a corporation, called a union?
If corporations have rights have they the right to conduct themselves in a way that reduces or eliminates the desire of its employees to organize?
without giving much thought to the idea that those laws may not be just.
Hence the premise to my question: Given that justice is served.... what difference makes the adjective? I would argue that (given justice is served) the adjective mmakes no difference.
Therefore the argument that social justice is inane, essentially makes the argument that a certain class of arguments (involving groups or classes) are never just, as in Vanges argument that only individuals have rights.
That may be. But if a group of individuals find that all of their individual rights are being usurped, haven't they the right to organize and defend their individual rights as a group?
"I don't agree that EVERYONE has a different definition"...
Well who's fault it that hydra?
=============================
Wh said anything aqbout fault? All I need to do is find two people with substantially the same definition to refute the argument that everyone has their own definition.
You are making the universal argument, "the truth is what I say it is" like the Wizard of Oz. Depends on what is, is, Like Bill Clinton.
You can do better than that.
Ok, so we agree that emotionally laden invective is bad practice and poor argumentation. So is the argument that " the other side does it too".
So what is a definition for justice that most can agree on?
I suggest a system in which rights are substantially equal among people, and responsibilities are consistent with and opposite in direction to the rights claimed.
If you claim a right, you must equally defend that right for others.
If only individuals have rights, then that excludes corporations from any protection of law? A corporation has no rights to pursue justice under the law?
That would be true only if the individuals who cooperated and created the corporation had no rights. This is an argument that is lost on the lefties so you may be barking up the wrong tree again.
Ok I will go re-read the Republic, I certainly do not recall the argument in question. but it sounds as if Socrates did not win the argument on its merits, but merely forced his opponent to retire.
Get the Bloom translation and look at the interpretive essay if you need a bit of help. Thrasymachus argues that justice is what the powerful people in power say it is. Socrates turns the tables by pointing out that as a teacher Thrasymachus has power over his students and could use that position to advantage. Needless to day Thrasymachus does not wish to pursue that line of argument and gives up. But in the end Socrates basically comes to the same conclusion. Most men only look to shadows at the wall cast by people who fool them. Even those people do not really understand reality as it is because only the best and the brightest are able to see reality as it is. It is those people who make the laws and determine what is permitted and what is not.
Needless to say Plato is a favourite of the statists and anyone who argues for the centralization of power. This is why I admire Aquinas' navigation of the hazards when he developed his Natural Law arguments.
If you claim a right, you must equally defend that right for others.
Which is why the only consistent system is one of negative rights. If I have the right to speak freely that right does not diminish your right to speak freely. That right does not burden me or anyone else with any obligations. But if I have the right to healthcare and you have the right to healthcare a burden is imposed on those that have to pay for that care. Any such positive 'rights' are not valid because they require that some people pay for the care of others even if they do not wish to. That violates the natural right to property and makes slaves out of everyone.
Guys, I think Hydra is just pulling our tail here. This must be a joke of his. We just can't seem to get his sense of humor. I refuse to believe that he just doesn't get it. I refuse to!
What about other rights that depend on mutual cooperation? Aren't those costs, too?
If a corporation has rights it can defend, why is that different from any other social organization?
What about other rights that depend on mutual cooperation? Aren't those costs, too?
There are no rights that oblige anyone else to cooperate with you. When you cooperate means that you work together voluntarily.
If a corporation has rights it can defend, why is that different from any other social organization?
Neither corporations nor social organizations have the right to force individuals to do what they do not agree to do on their own. I take it that when you are told that rights are negative you have no clue what that means.
You have the right to have a gun and so do I. We are neighbors. If you shoot your gun on your property, I don't have a problem with that and i expect the same.
But if You spend every Sunday all day long, blasting off several thousand rounds, then I would have a problem with that, and I expect you would have a problem if I did that as well. Normally, people cooperate and do not abuse their rights. But that cooperation represents a cost, to each of us.
Is it your argument that because your right to fire your gun does not detract from my right to fire mine, that you can do as you please?
I asked how a corporation defending its rights is any different from a social organization defending its rights. Your response tells me how they are the same.
So corporate justice is no different from social justice?
Don't we work together voluntarily to protect each others rights?
It seems to me by your definition of rights, that list must be very short.
Everything else, then, is open to being owned or controlled by someone. Is that your position????
You have the right to life and so do I. As a consequence, we have an obligation, implicit in recognizing each others rights, not to eat each other.
Your argument would ne that you have no right to force me to do anything I don't agree to, like being eaten.
I'm not site I see any functional difference. Not having the right to est each other implies That we both must go and incur some cost, in order to eat, and therefore enjoy our right to live.
Even such an elemental right as the right to live, burdens us with the cost associated with recognizing an equal right for others.
But if You spend every Sunday all day long, blasting off several thousand rounds, then I would have a problem with that, and I expect you would have a problem if I did that as well. Normally, people cooperate and do not abuse their rights. But that cooperation represents a cost, to each of us.
Is it your argument that because your right to fire your gun does not detract from my right to fire mine, that you can do as you please?
Not at all. I maintain that I have the right to enjoy my property in peace and quiet within reason. That means that you cannot keep firing shot after shot at all times of the day. Of course, you also have the right to enjoy your property in peace and quiet within reason. That means that I cannot keep firing shot after shot at all times of the day and disturb you.
We have had these discussions before. You either don't read well or have trouble following simple arguments.
So corporate justice is no different from social justice?
There is only justice. And rights are negative.
Don't we work together voluntarily to protect each others rights?
It seems to me by your definition of rights, that list must be very short.
Everything else, then, is open to being owned or controlled by someone. Is that your position????
I am saying that rights are negative. It is a very short list that was more than adequately described by Jefferson when he wrote, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." When we are born we all get the same rights. You have the right to your liberty, your life, your mind and body, and the property that your body and mind can acquire. That is pretty much it. As Rothbard pointed out, even something like your right to free speech is a property right. You do not have the right to come into my home uninvited and lecture me or to go into my theatre and yell fire when there is no fire. You have the right to associate with whomever you wish but not on my property if I do not invite you to do so.
This is not very complicated. The fact that you do not seem to be able to follow shows that you are either not trying or not very smart.
Even such an elemental right as the right to live, burdens us with the cost associated with recognizing an equal right for others.
What cost? My right to buy a press and pass out pamphlets to anyone who will buy or take them does not impose any cost on you. My right not to be killed or robbed is not a cost to you just as your right not to be killed or robbed is not a cost to me.
All rights are negative. And your example is that you have no right to force anyone else to do something they don't agree with.
But by initiating your value system with a postulate, all rights are negative, you stake out a certain territory, for which your right to ownership is not established. I refuse to agree to your postulate, upon which your rights are based, and therefore you have none.
You cannot force me to do something I don't agree to. I don't agree you have the right to life and I eat you. That is not a problem for me, since I don't agree all rights are negative.
Then you agree that all men are slaves to someone because they can be forced to do what they do not wish to do. You are free to disagree with Jefferson if you wish but I will go along and argue for the natural right position because it passes the smell test and is very logical. That cannot be said for your position.
We. Are not that far apart, though I think you take Rand too literally.
My position requires no postulate and does not conflict with Jefferson's postulated: all men are created equal.
If That is the case, them they must ne created with equal rights.Among them are life liberty and the pursuit of happiness ( but there may be many others) Jefferson does not claim his short list is exhaustive.
How do we ensure equal rights? One simple agreement: I agree to enforce yours exactly as much as you enforce mine. That enforcement has a cost. I agree not to do anything to you that I would not want done to me. I don't shhot of a thousand rounds, and nether do you.
Jefferson never explained what happens when your pursuit of happiness interferes with mine. I don't shout lfire in a movie, and neither do you.
Everything else is just details. It is exactly a question of negotiating how much will be paid to defend rights equally.
What I hear you saying is that you are unwilling to pay to provide equal rights, and you are willing to do without them yourself.
We. Are not that far apart, though I think you take Rand too literally.
Rand? I have not referred to Rand.
My position requires no postulate and does not conflict with Jefferson's postulated: all men are created equal.
Jefferson meant that they were born with equal rights, not that all men were physically or mentally equal. And you do disagree with Jefferson if you believe in positive rights because those have no place in a free society. Positive rights mean obligations are imposed on all of us and that we are serfs or slaves, not free men.
What I hear you saying is that you are unwilling to pay to provide equal rights, and you are willing to do without them yourself.
You don't have to pay to give everyone the right to life, liberty and property. But you do have to force some to pay for others if you want to pretend that positive rights are legitimate. And when you do you live in a society of serfs rather than free men.
You are allowed the same right to pusue uour happiness as i am to pusue mine. That doesn't mean you can fire off several thousand rounds, and expect me not to pursue my happiness. If yousre unwilling to strike a bargain ( you have rights) then you violate your own code by forcing me to do something I don't agree to. You are stating that your rights are more equal than mine.
Iam unwilling to pay to defend those rights, same as your position.
I think you make the mistake of thinking you have more rights, just because you have a few that aren't circumscribed, or well defined
My view says nothing about positive rights.
It says That every right comes with an equal and countervailing responsibility. Rights are neither positive or negative because either of those conditions offers one side an advantage: a way to claim more rights than the other Guy.
Like your example of, if I build my house first, you can't put a pig farm next door, Not an example of equal rights, but a selfish claim of prior roghts. If rights are equal, there is no first or second
By accusing me of supporting positive rights, you are again claiming ownership of and commanding me to accept your postulate that all rights are negative.
You are allowed the same right to pusue uour happiness as i am to pusue mine. That doesn't mean you can fire off several thousand rounds, and expect me not to pursue my happiness.
As I explained, I have no more right to interfere with your enjoyment of the property than you do to interfere with mine. That is what negative rights are about. The fact that you are too stupid to understand what is a simple argument is your problem, not mine.
Iam unwilling to pay to defend those rights, same as your position.
Pay how? The fact that I cannot intrude or trespass on your property is not a cost that I pay. Or that you pay. Try doing a bit of reading and a lot of thinking. It might help your deficiency.
I think you make the mistake of thinking you have more rights, just because you have a few that aren't circumscribed, or well defined
You misunderstand. I am pointing out that we have very few rights and that all of them are negative. Life, liberty, and property are quite sufficient for civilized living.
It says That every right comes with an equal and countervailing responsibility. Rights are neither positive or negative because either of those conditions offers one side an advantage: a way to claim more rights than the other Guy.
I think that you are just too stupid to follow the conversation. Try learning before you post.
By accusing me of supporting positive rights, you are again claiming ownership of and commanding me to accept your postulate that all rights are negative.
When you say that we have obligations to others that is exactly what you are saying. If you have the right to health care, education, food, shelter it means that someone has to provide them for you if you cannot afford them or have an interest in working to get them. That means that you support positive rights and by extension slavery.
No. Not if the obligation is a direct result of the rights we expect: the only obligation is that if you expect a right, you must also respect that right for others.
Inevitably that will have some kind of cost. Even for something as ostensibly unlimited as free speech, it cannnot rationally be exercised in an unlimited manner.
"If you have the right to health care, education, food, shelter it means that someone has to provide them for you if you cannot afford them or have an interest in working to get them. That means that you support.... slavery.
"
==============================
You are bringing in additional issues that are not a central part of this argument.
No, because if you cannot afford the costs associated with a right, which may not be monetary, then you cannot expect others to afford it on your behalf.
Besides, you ignore the temporal aspects of this. With insurance (public or private, health or otherwise) you pay the costs associated with a given level of risk, and that money is used to pay the expenses of others, maybe for decades. The only expectation is that if and when the risk affects you (in a way that you may suddenly be unable to afford), that turn around will be fair play. You expect the same treatment as you afford others, which is hardly slavery.
It is unreasonable and cynical to call this slavery.
Whether government has any business being involved is a different matter, but as far as justice and rights are concerned the issue is the same for government or private enterpise.
When businesses (insurors) got in the habit of not providing the fair play turnaround, some people saw that as a violation of rights they expected (and paid for) which were being stolen. Insurors would collect money, which was used to pay for services to others, but when some people applied to collect services,the insurors found excuses to deny what was promised, or even to claw back what was given.
Therefore they lobbied to have government step in. This has occured not only in the case of health insurance, but other forms of insurance as well.
We can argue about the expectations, whether they were unreasonable, and who set them, but the basic principle of simple fair play is not changed: I don't have to support you any more than you have to support me.
That makes both of us MORE free, and MORE wealthy, because we can select from many more rights than your limited view allows. Like any other trade agreement, the opportunity exists for both sides to be better off, even if both sides have some expenses.
Your complaint seems to be " wait a minute, I personally, did not agree to this." Well, OK, but what this means is that any multi-party negotiation always is subject to the limitation imposed by the lowest common denominator.
At its root, isn't that exactly what causes the government inefficiency that you so loathe? Isn't the ability (of a CEO)to impose a solution what makes corporations so efficient?
"I think that you are just too stupid to follow the conversation. Try learning before you post."
=================================
I do not understand why you stoop to this.
You were the first (and only) person in this string to present a view and a reason or reasoning to support it. We had a good conversation up till now.
==================================
"Not at all. I maintain that I have the right to enjoy my property in peace and quiet within reason. That means that you cannot keep firing shot after shot at all times of the day. Of course, you also have the right to enjoy your property in peace and quiet within reason. That means that I cannot keep firing shot after shot at all times of the day and disturb you."
We agree on this. The only difference seems to be that I recognize that the inability (for either of us) to fire shot after shot amounts to a cost. It is a (mutual) limitation on our freedom, which we exchange for other freedoms.
But isn't this an example of the many rights that we have and expect, that are either beyond your simple list, or progeny that descend form your list?
Jared Bernstein parlayed a Ph.D. in "Social Welfare" into a job as a top White House advisor on economics.
No. Not if the obligation is a direct result of the rights we expect: the only obligation is that if you expect a right, you must also respect that right for others.
Inevitably that will have some kind of cost. Even for something as ostensibly unlimited as free speech, it cannnot rationally be exercised in an unlimited manner.
Negative rights have no costs. Your right to life, liberty, and property do not cost me a thing. It is only if you claim positive rights, such as the right to an education, health care, etc., that you have to have someone pay for those things. In a free country you pay for those yourself or have to ask for help but cannot oblige anyone to help.
Besides, you ignore the temporal aspects of this. With insurance (public or private, health or otherwise) you pay the costs associated with a given level of risk, and that money is used to pay the expenses of others, maybe for decades. The only expectation is that if and when the risk affects you (in a way that you may suddenly be unable to afford), that turn around will be fair play. You expect the same treatment as you afford others, which is hardly slavery.
You are talking about a contractual obligation when I choose to buy the insurance product that is offered by a company. That is not the same thing as we are talking about.
Whether government has any business being involved is a different matter, but as far as justice and rights are concerned the issue is the same for government or private enterpise.
It does matter because once government meddles in what should be voluntary activities there is no freedom and your rights are violated.
When businesses (insurors) got in the habit of not providing the fair play turnaround, some people saw that as a violation of rights they expected (and paid for) which were being stolen. Insurors would collect money, which was used to pay for services to others, but when some people applied to collect services,the insurors found excuses to deny what was promised, or even to claw back what was given.
You are now confusing contracts and contract law with inalienable rights? You might try doing a bit of reading.
I do not understand why you stoop to this.
You were the first (and only) person in this string to present a view and a reason or reasoning to support it. We had a good conversation up till now.
Because you refuse to learn anything. You have been told about these things for two or three years now and still have trouble even getting the definitions right. If you are unwilling to learn but keep making the same arguments over and over again you are either stupid or playing games.
"social justice" and all the other flavors of "justice" mindlessly prattled on about on the left is the most intellectually bankrupt phrase in modern English.
It has no beginning, no ending, is utterly undefinable.
Equality of treatment under the law should be sufficient to define the goals of a "free" society but that really isn't the goal at all.
Hello! I just wanted to take the time to make a comment and say I have really enjoyed reading your blog on Social Justice. Thanks for all your work.
Post a Comment
<< Home