D@mn well thought out, and spot on
Leftists love to employ the term “Social Justice” as a feel-good word. It's usually a cheap excuse in debate to earn moral superiority, even though the phrase is intellectually empty.
Boiled down to its purest form, social justice is identity politics. It seeks to replace individual justice with groupthink. Each new activist campaign is framed as a noble cause. If you don’t agree with it, then you must be a bad person, no matter how asinine the demands are.
Think of it this way. Our Bill of Rights gives us “negative rights,” meaning “Congress shall make no law…” infringing on this or that right. Our rights are prior and independent from the government.
Social justice seeks to do the exact opposite. It seeks to give people “positive rights.” These are rights people are not born with, so the government must supply them. A right to a job, a house, a transgender bathroom, a jetpack, a cat, a more diverse Oscars, etc. etc.
Bernie Sanders uses the the term social justice regularly, especially when it comes to unemployment. But who exactly is being unjust? Are the employers who can't afford more workers being unjust? The consumers who refuse to create enough demand to justify more workers? Or the government for not taxing innocent parties to pay for labor that isn’t needed?
The SJ doctrine carries with it the implicit but necessary requirement for the state to fix things. The pursuit of perfect social justice must gradually move more and more decisions to the state, until it becomes the sole moral agent.Your liberties are gradually surrendered under the guise of “positive rights." What you have then is collectivist tyranny.
Leftists love to employ the term “Social Justice” as a feel-good word. It's usually a cheap excuse in debate to earn moral superiority, even though the phrase is intellectually empty.
Boiled down to its purest form, social justice is identity politics. It seeks to replace individual justice with groupthink. Each new activist campaign is framed as a noble cause. If you don’t agree with it, then you must be a bad person, no matter how asinine the demands are.
Think of it this way. Our Bill of Rights gives us “negative rights,” meaning “Congress shall make no law…” infringing on this or that right. Our rights are prior and independent from the government.
Social justice seeks to do the exact opposite. It seeks to give people “positive rights.” These are rights people are not born with, so the government must supply them. A right to a job, a house, a transgender bathroom, a jetpack, a cat, a more diverse Oscars, etc. etc.
Bernie Sanders uses the the term social justice regularly, especially when it comes to unemployment. But who exactly is being unjust? Are the employers who can't afford more workers being unjust? The consumers who refuse to create enough demand to justify more workers? Or the government for not taxing innocent parties to pay for labor that isn’t needed?
The SJ doctrine carries with it the implicit but necessary requirement for the state to fix things. The pursuit of perfect social justice must gradually move more and more decisions to the state, until it becomes the sole moral agent.Your liberties are gradually surrendered under the guise of “positive rights." What you have then is collectivist tyranny.
Comment