Anyone care to define social justice...?

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
Simple Minded

Anyone care to define social justice...?

Post by Simple Minded »

A chic term that so many like to use, what exactly do you mean by this "social justice?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk
cdgt
Posts: 163
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2012 2:32 am

Re: Anyone care to define social justice...?

Post by cdgt »

A very special form of teflon coating for plain old non-social "justice." When used, the underlying claim is automatically exempted from any and all critical scrutiny.
User avatar
Enki
Posts: 5052
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 6:04 pm

Re: Anyone care to define social justice...?

Post by Enki »

If you have to ask...


Read the declaration of independence and apply it to black people. That is social justice.

Not robbing people of their land and livelihoods. Not incarcerating people for stupid reasons. Not rigging the system in favor of one at the expense of another.
Men often oppose a thing merely because they have had no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike.
-Alexander Hamilton
User avatar
Marcus
Posts: 2409
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 2:23 pm
Location: Alaska

Re: Anyone care to define social justice...?

Post by Marcus »

No, no, no . . . y'all have missed it by a mile.

Social justice is when the rich pay their fair share.

Sheeeesh . . .
"The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's time."
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: Anyone care to define social justice...?

Post by Ibrahim »

cdgt wrote:A very special form of teflon coating for plain old non-social "justice." When used, the underlying claim is automatically exempted from any and all critical scrutiny.
For most of recorded history it was "just" to own a slave, or beat your wife (within defined limits) or even kill your own children if their behavior was sufficiently defiant (Roman law, Old Testament law). The main idea behind "social justice" is applying the rights granted to the elite of a given society to all members of that society, or all humans generally. Concepts like "social justice," "multiculturalism" and "human rights" are much mocked and maligned by conservatives over the past two decades or so, though few people if anybody actually disagrees with their outcomes.
cdgt
Posts: 163
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2012 2:32 am

Re: Anyone care to define social justice...?

Post by cdgt »

Ibrahim wrote:
cdgt wrote:A very special form of teflon coating for plain old non-social "justice." When used, the underlying claim is automatically exempted from any and all critical scrutiny.
For most of recorded history it was "just" to own a slave, or beat your wife (within defined limits) or even kill your own children if their behavior was sufficiently defiant (Roman law, Old Testament law). The main idea behind "social justice" is applying the rights granted to the elite of a given society to all members of that society, or all humans generally. Concepts like "social justice," "multiculturalism" and "human rights" are much mocked and maligned by conservatives over the past two decades or so, though few people if anybody actually disagrees with their outcomes.
So it's just a word game. Like I said.
Dioscuri
Posts: 215
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:54 am

Re: Anyone care to define social justice...?

Post by Dioscuri »

This is covered by the earliest recorded instance of Western thought, and its answer is definitive for all who lack impairment.

"ἐξ ὧν δὲ ἡ γένεσίς ἐστι τοῖς οὖσι, καὶ τὴν φθορὰν εἰς ταῦτα γίνεσθαι κατὰ τὸ χρεών· διδόναι γὰρ αὐτὰ δίκην καὶ τίσιν ἀλλήλοις τῆς ἀδικίας κατὰ τὴν τοῦ χρόνου τάξιν, ποιητικωτέροις οὕτως ὀνόμασιν αὐτὰ λέγων"

I will translate, giving alternative readings of the crucial terms:

"From out of the genesis of things comes also their destruction, according to [chreon: usage/necessity/need/obligation/debt]. For they restore [diken: justice/right/equity] and thereby give [tisin: recompense/what is owed/what is demanded] to one another through iniquity, according to the order of time; in this way [legon: speaking/choosing/lying] names them the more productive."


You have heard.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaximander
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: Anyone care to define social justice...?

Post by Ibrahim »

cdgt wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:
cdgt wrote:A very special form of teflon coating for plain old non-social "justice." When used, the underlying claim is automatically exempted from any and all critical scrutiny.
For most of recorded history it was "just" to own a slave, or beat your wife (within defined limits) or even kill your own children if their behavior was sufficiently defiant (Roman law, Old Testament law). The main idea behind "social justice" is applying the rights granted to the elite of a given society to all members of that society, or all humans generally. Concepts like "social justice," "multiculturalism" and "human rights" are much mocked and maligned by conservatives over the past two decades or so, though few people if anybody actually disagrees with their outcomes.
So it's just a word game. Like I said.
No, it is the opposite of what you said. Your criticism of these things is only a word game. The movements themselves have generated real improvements that few if any people will openly object to. Thus they play word games and attack the terminology where they can't attack the substance.
cdgt
Posts: 163
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2012 2:32 am

Re: Anyone care to define social justice...?

Post by cdgt »

Ibrahim wrote:
cdgt wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:
cdgt wrote:A very special form of teflon coating for plain old non-social "justice." When used, the underlying claim is automatically exempted from any and all critical scrutiny.
For most of recorded history it was "just" to own a slave, or beat your wife (within defined limits) or even kill your own children if their behavior was sufficiently defiant (Roman law, Old Testament law). The main idea behind "social justice" is applying the rights granted to the elite of a given society to all members of that society, or all humans generally. Concepts like "social justice," "multiculturalism" and "human rights" are much mocked and maligned by conservatives over the past two decades or so, though few people if anybody actually disagrees with their outcomes.
So it's just a word game. Like I said.
No, it is the opposite of what you said. Your criticism of these things is only a word game. The movements themselves have generated real improvements that few if any people will openly object to. Thus they play word games and attack the terminology where they can't attack the substance.
No, the movements play word games and credit word games as progress. You did it yourself.

You narrowly defined justice (For most of recorded history it was "just" to own a slave, or beat your wife (within defined limits) or even kill your own children if their behavior was sufficiently defiant (Roman law, Old Testament law).) into something it is not (show me a dictionary where justice is defined as owning slaves or beating wives), then gave credit to word games for the real progress.

Social justice, if is indeed genuine progress, is just ... justice.

But liberals and lawyers like semantic games.
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: Anyone care to define social justice...?

Post by Ibrahim »

cdgt wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:
cdgt wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:
cdgt wrote:A very special form of teflon coating for plain old non-social "justice." When used, the underlying claim is automatically exempted from any and all critical scrutiny.
For most of recorded history it was "just" to own a slave, or beat your wife (within defined limits) or even kill your own children if their behavior was sufficiently defiant (Roman law, Old Testament law). The main idea behind "social justice" is applying the rights granted to the elite of a given society to all members of that society, or all humans generally. Concepts like "social justice," "multiculturalism" and "human rights" are much mocked and maligned by conservatives over the past two decades or so, though few people if anybody actually disagrees with their outcomes.
So it's just a word game. Like I said.
No, it is the opposite of what you said. Your criticism of these things is only a word game. The movements themselves have generated real improvements that few if any people will openly object to. Thus they play word games and attack the terminology where they can't attack the substance.
No, the movements play word games and credit word games as progress. You did it yourself.
False.

You narrowly defined justice (For most of recorded history it was "just" to own a slave, or beat your wife (within defined limits) or even kill your own children if their behavior was sufficiently defiant (Roman law, Old Testament law).) into something it is not (show me a dictionary where justice is defined as owning slaves or beating wives), then gave credit to word games for the real progress.
I did not "narrowly define justice," is pointed out flaws in historical conceptions of justice that the social justice movement attempts to correct. Specifically that justice was limited in its application. To claim that my quote above was meant to be an exhaustive definition of "justice" calls your basic reading comprehension into serious question.


Social justice, if is indeed genuine progress, is just ... justice.
:lol: Right, and criminal justice, if it is genuinely applied to criminals, is just... justice.




But liberals and lawyers like semantic games.
I'm just using words and describing events correctly. Not what you are used to, but you need to adjust.
Simple Minded

Re: Anyone care to define social justice...?

Post by Simple Minded »

Sooooo far..... based on observations.....I be thinking that "social justice" is mush, must, much, most about insulting "those people" who are not monlithicly goose stepping with the opinion defined as "right" by the previous user.

That's the easy part..... isn't it ;)

What I want is "social justice," and if you don't agree with my definition (which is usually, unsurprizingly biased), you are evil, wrong, stupid, incompassionate, or just playing "word games."

So was Robin Hood a good guy or a bad guy, and from whose perspective? Who are today's Robin Hoods?

Person A says "Life" is "unfair!"
Person B says "Life" is "hard!"
Person C says "Life" is "just."

Not only does perspective come into play, but Time is also a huge factor!!!! One that many do not wish to think about.

So, who is right, wrong, compassionate, mean-spirited, evil, naive, or perhaps a Scrabble Master that the proletariat will follow and adore?
Last edited by Simple Minded on Wed Apr 25, 2012 2:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: Anyone care to define social justice...?

Post by Ibrahim »

Simple Minded wrote:Sooooo far..... based on observations.....I be thinking that "social justice" is mush, must, much, most about insulting "those people" who are not monlithicly goose stepping with the opinion defined as "right" by the previous user.

Fair enough. I think of it more as "women can vote," and "being homosexual isn't a crime." But we all have our own point of view.




Person A says "Life" is "unfair!"
Person B says "Life" is "hard!"
Person C says "Life" is "just."
Person C would be a little naive, but we do try.
Hoosiernorm
Posts: 2206
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2011 7:59 pm

Re: Anyone care to define social justice...?

Post by Hoosiernorm »

Social justice is what the mob wants and demands in spite of the circumstances. To hold onto one point of absurdity beyond it's reasonable purpose and to turn the demands of the crowd into a plea of the tragic hero who stands for something even when it is non applicable. Social justice is the consolidation of sentimentalism with the promise of violence and inhumanity.
Been busy doing stuff
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: Anyone care to define social justice...?

Post by Ibrahim »

Hoosiernorm wrote:Social justice is what the mob wants and demands in spite of the circumstances.
I thought that was mob justice.



Social justice is the consolidation of sentimentalism with the promise of violence and inhumanity.
Where is the sentimentalism, violence and inhumanity in, for example, arguing that women should be paid the same as men?
Hoosiernorm
Posts: 2206
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2011 7:59 pm

Re: Anyone care to define social justice...?

Post by Hoosiernorm »

Ibrahim wrote:
Hoosiernorm wrote:Social justice is what the mob wants and demands in spite of the circumstances.
I thought that was mob justice.



Social justice is the consolidation of sentimentalism with the promise of violence and inhumanity.
Where is the sentimentalism, violence and inhumanity in, for example, arguing that women should be paid the same as men?
The difference between mob justice and an outcry of community leaders is largely who is telling the story as far as I can tell.

Where is the logic of paying a woman the same as a man? It isn't an argument of fact it's an argument of opinion based not on morality or on established ethics since to pay anyone less than you pay anyone else is of course good business. To pay them the same is also in violation of established practice and norms so it cannot be said that to do so would be establishing what was normal because at that time it was not and had never been a normal practice. Showing news cast after news cast of women screaming and crying and demanding something based on their ability to scream cry or demand was the basis of an entire group of people getting status beyond their capacity to individually secure a higher wage. Highly paid women were already in the work force and there were women who were able to draw a salary above their male peers depending on their level of skill and ability to negotiate. The political violence and inhumanity of comodifying an individual as a part of a class group that has rights that the other non comodified group can enjoy is a political novelty that in my estimation has no basis in nature but in a false political structure.
Been busy doing stuff
User avatar
Endovelico
Posts: 3038
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 3:00 pm

Re: Anyone care to define social justice...?

Post by Endovelico »

Social justice has two components:

"Social", means that it concerns people within a community.

"Justice", means that it concerns guaranteeing people's rights.

Communities arose from the fact that one's survival is more easily attained in cooperation with others, and that each one should contribute to the common good within his/her means, and benefit from the assistance of others to the extent of each one's needs. That means that what you put in the community does not have to be equal, in material value, to what you are entitled to take out. If you give what you can, you are entitled to take what you need. The problem is assessing what the word "need" means, but we must assume that it refers only to what you need to live in a manner that does not affect you human dignity. Food, shelter, basic clothing, access to education and health care. It is also difficult to assess whether one is contributing to the common good to the extent of one's capacity. But it isn't impossible. One must assume that if one is working a regular day's work that he/she is doing his/her share, no matter what the material value of the effort. If one is not working, because there is no work, one should be assigned a task benefiting the community, such as caring for the young or the elderly, helping to preserve the environment, etc.. Beyond this, social justice must mean that no one is allowed to take advantage of any other person in the community. No exploitation, no oppression...

Not all that difficult to understand, is it?...
User avatar
Enki
Posts: 5052
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 6:04 pm

Re: Anyone care to define social justice...?

Post by Enki »

Hoosiernorm wrote:Social justice is what the mob wants and demands in spite of the circumstances. To hold onto one point of absurdity beyond it's reasonable purpose and to turn the demands of the crowd into a plea of the tragic hero who stands for something even when it is non applicable. Social justice is the consolidation of sentimentalism with the promise of violence and inhumanity.
These projections are fascinating. It really tells a lot about a person's political orientation where they fall on this issue.

This seems like a corrolary to the ridiculous argument that people who got laid off and are having trouble paying the rent are simply, 'jealous' of rich successful people.
Men often oppose a thing merely because they have had no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike.
-Alexander Hamilton
User avatar
Enki
Posts: 5052
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 6:04 pm

Re: Anyone care to define social justice...?

Post by Enki »

Hoosiernorm wrote: The difference between mob justice and an outcry of community leaders is largely who is telling the story as far as I can tell.

Where is the logic of paying a woman the same as a man? It isn't an argument of fact it's an argument of opinion based not on morality or on established ethics since to pay anyone less than you pay anyone else is of course good business. To pay them the same is also in violation of established practice and norms so it cannot be said that to do so would be establishing what was normal because at that time it was not and had never been a normal practice. Showing news cast after news cast of women screaming and crying and demanding something based on their ability to scream cry or demand was the basis of an entire group of people getting status beyond their capacity to individually secure a higher wage. Highly paid women were already in the work force and there were women who were able to draw a salary above their male peers depending on their level of skill and ability to negotiate. The political violence and inhumanity of comodifying an individual as a part of a class group that has rights that the other non comodified group can enjoy is a political novelty that in my estimation has no basis in nature but in a false political structure.
Obviously one could make the argument that established practices and norms are unjust. We can see this by how hard people fight against living wages. The notion that if you pay someone enough that they can afford to eat AND pay rent that it's anti-capitalistic demonstrates just how unjust the way we practice capitalism in this nation actually is.
Men often oppose a thing merely because they have had no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike.
-Alexander Hamilton
User avatar
Enki
Posts: 5052
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 6:04 pm

Re: Anyone care to define social justice...?

Post by Enki »

Endovelico wrote:Social justice has two components:

"Social", means that it concerns people within a community.

"Justice", means that it concerns guaranteeing people's rights.

Communities arose from the fact that one's survival is more easily attained in cooperation with others, and that each one should contribute to the common good within his/her means, and benefit from the assistance of others to the extent of each one's needs. That means that what you put in the community does not have to be equal, in material value, to what you are entitled to take out. If you give what you can, you are entitled to take what you need. The problem is assessing what the word "need" means, but we must assume that it refers only to what you need to live in a manner that does not affect you human dignity. Food, shelter, basic clothing, access to education and health care. It is also difficult to assess whether one is contributing to the common good to the extent of one's capacity. But it isn't impossible. One must assume that if one is working a regular day's work that he/she is doing his/her share, no matter what the material value of the effort. If one is not working, because there is no work, one should be assigned a task benefiting the community, such as caring for the young or the elderly, helping to preserve the environment, etc.. Beyond this, social justice must mean that no one is allowed to take advantage of any other person in the community. No exploitation, no oppression...

Not all that difficult to understand, is it?...
In our current system, value is divorced from work. Value is determined by the scarcity of workers who can perform that particular type of labor, it has nothing at all to do with the actual value of the labor itself. Plenty of mission critical jobs are valued less because there are a lot of people who can do that job. It goes back into the fallacy that rich people work 'harder'. The average janitor works as hard or harder as the average white collar worker and yet makes considerably less, even though, arguably his job is more important. The main difference is that it is easier to find and train a janitor. Which actually probably isn't true, a good janitor is hard to come by. But the perception of the menial labor of a janitor makes his job worth less money, but my building's janitor/super who doesn't speak English is one of the most competent people I've met in my life. I am pretty certain he makes less money than a lot of incompetent web/graphic designers I've worked with.
Men often oppose a thing merely because they have had no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike.
-Alexander Hamilton
User avatar
Parodite
Posts: 5637
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Anyone care to define social justice...?

Post by Parodite »

Social justice.. one of those terms.. Good question. Language lives, evolves.. why not create a new defintion? Maybe if you can sing this:

9AQ3Fcb3sjk
Deep down I'm very superficial
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: Anyone care to define social justice...?

Post by Ibrahim »

Hoosiernorm wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:
Hoosiernorm wrote:Social justice is what the mob wants and demands in spite of the circumstances.
I thought that was mob justice.



Social justice is the consolidation of sentimentalism with the promise of violence and inhumanity.
Where is the sentimentalism, violence and inhumanity in, for example, arguing that women should be paid the same as men?
The difference between mob justice and an outcry of community leaders is largely who is telling the story as far as I can tell.
Really?

Where is the logic of paying a woman the same as a man?
Where is the logic of discriminating based on gender? For that matter where is the logic that says I can't just own people instead of having employees. That would be good business sense for United Fruit. How far down this path do you really want to go?



Showing news cast after news cast of women screaming and crying and demanding something based on their ability to scream cry or demand was the basis of an entire group of people getting status beyond their capacity to individually secure a higher wage.


So if you have a group of people doing the same job, and you pay some of them differently based on race, gender, hair colour, eyc., there really isn't anything wrong with that. Anybody who objects is just engaging in a bunch of hysterical screaming. So you want to go further down this path than I thought.



The political violence and inhumanity of comodifying an individual as a part of a class group that has rights that the other non comodified group can enjoy is a political novelty that in my estimation has no basis in nature but in a false political structure.
Not clear what you mean by "basis in nature." Deer don't form labor unions so people shouldn't either? I don't even understand your gripe here. It's "violence" for women to ask for equal pay, but not violent, and in fact also "natural," to discriminate or exploit a workforce, and therefore that's what we should do or encourage in society in order to be natural?
Simple Minded

Re: Anyone care to define social justice...?

Post by Simple Minded »

Fascinating thread IMSMO so far.... thanks to all for posting

even with a concept as amorphous and innocuous as social justice..... some just can't resist personal attacks....... then the personal attacks quickly take priority over discussing subject matter....

Classic, we haven't even gotten into the minor detail of who gets granted the authority to stick a gun in whom's face to make life more fair yet...... lots of lines to be drawn, lots of variables and terms yet to be defined,

Excellent indicators........

"Everybody who doesn't agree 110% with what I say is my moral and intellectual inferior and non-deserving of equal regard."

"My gang will do it better. We just need unlimited resources....."
Simple Minded

Re: Anyone care to define social justice...?

Post by Simple Minded »

If only we could agree upon what variables to focus on and what variables to ignore (half of being smart is knowing what you're dumb at), we just might start getting some definitions established.

We also need to establish timeframes. One can always claim life is good, fair, just, hard, unfair, and unjust..... if one limits one's timeframe. Do we only correct "unjust" (definition please.... Bueller.... Bueller...) static conditions after 10 years, 1 year, 1 month, 1 week, 1 day.......

How bout corrective measures? Most choose to ignore actual costs, hidden costs, perverse incentives, and unintended consequences when imposing their idea of "justice" on others. Easier that way....... We need to decide what level of force and sacrifice is acceptable to achieve our goal. How many eggs does it take to make an omulet?

For example:
Is it "socially just" to financially rape generation N+1 and N+2 in order to establish "social justice" for generation N? Same thing for group or individual A to benefit at the expense of groups or individuals B, C, D, etc

Corporation X or Public Entity Y has to choose between spending current funds on hiring the young, or paying the pensions of the old. Both the young and the old claim to believe in "social justice" but probably won't agree on who holds the gun and who obeys the dictates..... who do we sacrifice for whom?

Not at all unusual for a person to spend the first 25 years of their life in the bottom 30% of the population in terms of wealth, and the last 25 years of their life in the top 30% of the population in terms of wealth. Is that justice?

Is Social Security just? One one hand, it promotes increased spending and reduced savings (good for the contemporary economies and politicians) during one's working years, and by paying the old farts to stay home, it opens up jobs and opportunities for the young. On the other hand, should the young be expected to pay just to get the old farts out of the job market? What if the young are unemployed?

Cuting SS benefits might increase youth unemployment...... whoops another unsquare circle.....
People want free education the first 20 years..... pensions/SS the last 20 years...... and never think it thru enough to realize they are going to paying the tab for both in the middle 40 years...... another unfree lunch

fascinates the hell outa my simple mind.......
User avatar
Endovelico
Posts: 3038
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 3:00 pm

Re: Anyone care to define social justice...?

Post by Endovelico »

Simple Minded wrote:If only we could agree upon what variables to focus on and what variables to ignore (half of being smart is knowing what you're dumb at), we just might start getting some definitions established.(...)
A couple of days I posted the following:
Social justice has two components:

"Social", means that it concerns people within a community.

"Justice", means that it concerns guaranteeing people's rights.

Communities arose from the fact that one's survival is more easily attained in cooperation with others, and that each one should contribute to the common good within his/her means, and benefit from the assistance of others to the extent of each one's needs. That means that what you put in the community does not have to be equal, in material value, to what you are entitled to take out. If you give what you can, you are entitled to take what you need. The problem is assessing what the word "need" means, but we must assume that it refers only to what you need to live in a manner that does not affect you human dignity. Food, shelter, basic clothing, access to education and health care. It is also difficult to assess whether one is contributing to the common good to the extent of one's capacity. But it isn't impossible. One must assume that if one is working a regular day's work that he/she is doing his/her share, no matter what the material value of the effort. If one is not working, because there is no work, one should be assigned a task benefiting the community, such as caring for the young or the elderly, helping to preserve the environment, etc.. Beyond this, social justice must mean that no one is allowed to take advantage of any other person in the community. No exploitation, no oppression...

Not all that difficult to understand, is it?...
I had hoped this would assist in clarifying what some people mean by "social justice". But nobody cared about commenting on it (Enki excepted), which may mean, of course, that it wasn't good enough to justify commenting. But I seem to detect in your posts some doubts that might be resolved by focusing on my view of social justice. Ant then again, maybe not...
User avatar
Marcus
Posts: 2409
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 2:23 pm
Location: Alaska

Fundamentalism strikes again . . .

Post by Marcus »

Enki wrote:. . I'm willing to accept that you are too stupid to comprehend . .
. . I think you can't understand basic grammar. . .
Tacky, tacky, Tinker, but you're not the only one on these fora who think they're so smart and those with whom they disagree are just plain dumb. What you and they don't comprehend is that some presuppositions, some world-views, some religions are mutually exclusive. In such a case, one can just agree to disagree or, failing that capacity, personally abuse their opponent. Fundamentalsts, like Joseph's coat, come in many colors.

Do you have any idea how long men have been discussing this subject and failing to agree in the process?
header_logo.jpg
header_logo.jpg (15.18 KiB) Viewed 1189 times
About Liberty Fund Books

For three decades, Liberty Fund has made available some of the finest books in history, politics, philosophy, law, education, and economics—books of enduring value that have helped to shape ideas and events in man’s quest for liberty, order, and justice.

Liberty Fund books are edited in accordance with the highest standards of scholarly publishing. Many include new noninterpretive forewords, prefaces, or introductions by leading authorities, as well as annotations, bibliographies, and indexes. Our books are designed to last, to be read again and again; and we make certain that they will always be available at reasonable prices. They are produced according to the highest standards of book production—on acid-free paper, with Smyth-sewn signatures for both the hardcover and the paperback editions. Liberty Fund books are a valuable asset in any library or personal collection.

Liberty Fund has already published more than 300 titles across a breadth of subject categories.
Browse the site and book titles . . :oops:
"The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's time."
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin
Post Reply