Wednesday, July 02, 2008

Defining Social Justice

As the left continues its political ascendancy, their boldness increases to the point where I'm hearing more and more about how they plan to wield their power. One of the catch-phrases I keep hearing is Social Justice.

I've been hearing the term for just about as long as I can remember, but never really figured out how it was defined. My vague understanding was that it must have something to do with treating everyone fairly and not allowing the poor to be abused by evildoers.

Ask me to define Social Justice, and I might suggest it might be efforts at insuring that everyone have fair access to freedom and the American Dream. Nobody should be forced to live anywhere, told where or when to travel, what to eat or drink (aside from reasonable restrictions on public drunkenness), what they read or believe, or with whom they associate. Pretty much the Bill of Rights.

But as I've come to understand it, the prevalent definition of Social Justice by the Left is simply Socialism. They seem to be saying that Socialism is the only "fair" path to Social Justice. But Socialism by its very nature is opposed to freedom.

When the government bestows the "rich" label on certain citizens and proclaims all "rich" are evil and deserve to have their wealth confiscated, that's antithetical to Justice. When the government takes over half the income of the majority of its citizens, keeps most of it, and gives the rest to those who do not produce anything, that's not Justice.

When the government decides to give special privileges to certain people based on their skin color or behavior, threatening to prosecute churches who preach the behavior is immoral and businessmen who don't hire specific quotas of those groups regardless of qualifications and suitability for the jobs, that certainly isn't Justice.

We will always have poor. It seems to me that Socialism simply makes the poor minimally less poor in return for complete and total dependence on the government, while making everyone else much more poor by confiscating their wealth and taking their freedom.

It seems to me that instead of promoting Socialism and its direct opposition to the American Constitution, maybe government should focus on working with the citizenry to make sure the doors are open for anyone from any race, class, or gender to walk through if they're willing to work hard and prove themselves. Then perhaps others would be inspired to achievement based on the pioneering example of those who successfully pulled themselves up from poverty to success and happiness.

Sadly, it seems that most of our citizens have decided they are willing to lose their constitution, freedom and wealth to a corrupt Socialist government that will become the new "rich". And by then it will be too late to go back.

No comments: