Monday, May 14, 2012

The True Meaning of “Social Justice”

     The left has a habit of obscuring their ideas in vague terminology in order to hide true meaning. This is accomplished either by using euphemisms to make atrocities sound pleasant, or the pleasant sound atrocious, or by wrapping one argument inside another. For example; "the right to health care" is a liberal method of covering up their belief in the notion of a right to steal health care services, with another more legitimate argument that is completely unrelated. That legitimate argument is that everyone has the right to healthcare, that is, everyone has the right to purchase health care services from a willing seller in the free market. This is not the same as saying that one has the right to FORCE others to pay for his or her healthcare. But notice that this argument is deliberately obscured by wrapping it in the vague and more sensible sounding argument. This deception is intentional.

     And so it is with Social Justice. This word has been defined by Dictionary.com as;
"Social Justice: the distribution of advantages and disadvantages within a society."
Now if that was not vague enough another definition is;
"Social justice generally refers to the idea of creating an egalitarian society or institution that is based on the principles of equality and solidarity, that understands and values human rights, and that recognizes the dignity of every human being." This definition refers to multiple ideas, but justice is not an idea, it is an action that involves punishment and judicial ideas are always put into practice.

     Equality and solidarity? This is nonspecific, which is it; equality of opportunity or equality of outcome? (The later of course.) There are two types of equality that led to opposite philosophies. What is meant by solidarity?  The dictionary defines it as follows;
"Solidarity: Unity or agreement of feeling or action, esp. amoung individuals with a common interest; mutual support within a group."

So let us summarize:
     1) It is a belief in equality of outcome, (It must be, after all, even conservatives believe in equality of opportunity and this is not a conservative concept.)
     2) It “understands and values human rights.” Does it now? Does it understand the human rights of the wealthy? Does it understand that part of human rights is property rights?
     3) "Solidarity: Unity or agreement of feeling or action." So I have to feel the way you want me to? Do I have to have a common interest with you?

Even the definition contains deliberate obfuscation, but from what I can tell this idea is leaning toward a very communal type of property arrangement.

To clear things up here I will provide you with my own, much more accurate and specific definition as follows;
Social Justice: "A program to retaliate against, and redistribute wealth from a dominant white majority to a liberal, pathetic, lazy minority of mostly white, but also non white socialists in order to assist helping them avoid work and responsibility."

You like?

This is its action definition. It is the definition of the ideas put into practice, and practice is where ideas come into contact with reality. There is one other institution that does this kind of linguistic deception; the military, and it is in the business of killing. Liberals have their own private language of euphemisms. Here are some for your consideration;
"Affirmative Action," is really, "discriminating against whites for the sake of others,"
"Minority" means "everyone but the white man" or "everyone but white people" as evidenced buy the phrase, "women and minorities."
"Patriarchy," - the white men we are trying to suppress and rob.
"Accountability" - mob justice against the unpopular.
"Economic Fairness," - the false presumption that you are poor because the rich are keeping you down and not because of your own stupidity or failure to recognize the opportunities available to you, and seize those opportunities.
"Minority Rights," a program to empower one group at the expense of another. (The last time minority rights existed in western civilization it was called the divine right of kings, and also the rights of slave owners)

Social Justice is a perversion of actual justice. Justice always begs the question; who is to be punished? How is it to be applied? Justice involves punishment. Does this involve punishment or is it just another euphemism? As well as, are they guilty? Who is the accuser and do you have the right to face them? Well, who is to be punished with social justice? Also, how can you punish a person for the past crimes of his race? He has committed no crime. Real justice follows certain ancient traditions that have been worked out over centuries to avoid the abuses of power that plagued humanity since time immemorial. These are based on certain concepts and rights, none of which exist in social justice. They are;
1) The right of habeas corpus, or "the civil right to obtain a writ of habeas corpus as protection against illegal imprisonment," This is to prevent against the mop justice that social justice serves.
2) The right to trial by jury - to prevent politics from playing a part in justice as it does in social justice.
3) Not just a jury, but a jury of peers (is the advocate of social justice going to let the rich man be tried by other wealthy persons?)
4) The right of appeal - because injustice can happen, especially in politically motivated social justice.
5) Innocent until proven guilty, the white man is guilty until proven innocent in the liberal view, the wealthy as well.
6) The always implied right of an individual to be tried and judged on an individual basis regardless of class, race or group membership - because the last time an entire group was tried collectively six million Jews were lost, and before that blacks were enslaved.
     It may not occur to the left that it is practicing concepts that it also abhors. All of social justice is a thinly veiled justification for horrors that the past need not repeat. Let us not forget that social justice has its roots in Marxist thought.

     Language is important. Its usage in politics is a type of weapon which serves the goal of the author. Since most people hold secondhand opinions and do not bother to form their own because of the nuance, complexity, and annoyance of political philosophy, it matters what vocabulary we select for our ideas. Political language can clarify, confuse, or confound (that is, combine two or more ideas to obscure their difference). Language is subject to the flaws of both informal and formal logical fallacies. Knowing exactly what the goal of the author is, and their possibly deceptive methods will bring us clarity in the pursuit of truth. That is, after all, the point of this blog - not the pursuit of government benefits.


No comments:

Post a Comment