One of the flawed premises of “Social Justice” is that it approaches economics like a pizza. Think of a pizza equally sliced 6 ways and set before 6 children. We would rightly expect that each child would get one slice. That would be fair.
This is simple, at least as it pertains to pizza equality. There is nothing abstract about it. In this idea, “fair” is definable. If any one child gets more than his “fair” share, someone else will have to do with less, and we all know that that just wouldn’t be fair.
These children then grow up and the same ideas of “equality” remain intact and are then applied to complex economic systems. We look around and see all kinds of unfairness because it would appear that life has given a few people very large slices and the rest only slivers.
But the world’s economy is not a pizza magically set before us by some cosmic, parental hand. And any person we select to play the cosmic paternal role is not only incapable of baking up the world’s economy in his kitchen, he doesn’t have the omniscience to cut it into “fair” slices either. That’s because “fair” means different things to different people at different times. Even in the example of the six children above we must make assumptions like, they all like pizza, there are no alternatives, they are all hungry, and so on.
It is easy to critique what is by comparing it to what is not based on an ambiguous and undefinable standard like “social justice”. But it is much more difficult to clearly define what ought to be. Wisdom would suggest that if we set out to abandon what is, on the basis of what is not, we ought also to clearly understand what ought to be in universally accepted and understood terms… don’t you think?