Though “social-justice” is a popular phrase these days, nailing down its precise meaning can be a little difficult. But that’s one of the advantages of using it; it can mean so many different things to so many different people. Still, there does seem to be an animating sentiment behind the word sufficient enough for a vague understanding of its meaning by a large number of people.
So what does Social-Justice mean? Think, equality; or fair, generally as it concerns wealth.
Throughout the history of man every society has exhibited a disparity of wealth among its citizens. The lion’s share of wealth is usually held by leaders, as well as some others. Meanwhile, the masses work very hard for their subsistence. In most cases, no matter how an economy is dissected, the ease enjoyed by the wealthy is made possible by the “poor’s” labor. The cause of ending this historic trait is called “Social Justice”. But that’s about all it is, a cause.
Historically, millions upon untold millions of people have died in their attempts to institute some form of social justice. But after the blood dries, the smoke clears, and the dead are buried, what arises from the smoking horror and ashes is a new society with… you guessed it, wealth disparity? But you have to hand it to the glorious heart of man, he never seems to tire of spilling his blood for this cause.
The reason for the certainty of failure can be summed up in the flawed premises that undergird the concept of “social justice”. But I’ll be content for now that a foundation on the subject has been laid, and I will expand on these flaws in upcoming posts.
See also this parallel post.