Anyone care to define social justice...?

[Mr. Perfect]

What you are asked to pay is the opportunity of providing, with profit, a good or a service to the members of your community.

I pay for the opportunity any time I buy something privately. No tax is needed.

That profit has a social cost to the community

No it doesn't.

and therefore must have an equivalent cost to you, to balance the books.

No it doesn't.

[Mr. Perfect]

I think we can skip STPN because that is a like pooring gasoline in a leaking tank. Just dumb and an expensive excuse not to send a broken car to the junk yard where it belongs.

Fair share of taxes better starts with a counter question: what taxes used for what are in your opinion necessary?

Well my answer is I would like to privatize all entitlements and public schools, eliminate at least half of all regulation and agencies, and then set a single flat sales tax to cover the cost of what's left, with particular awareness of the negative effect of taxation on economic activity.

[Endovelico]

What you are asked to pay is the opportunity of providing, with profit, a good or a service to the members of your community.

I pay for the opportunity any time I buy something privately. No tax is needed.

That profit has a social cost to the community

No it doesn't.

and therefore must have an equivalent cost to you, to balance the books.

No it doesn't.

Say hello to Santa Claus, next time you see him...

[YMix]

That's what you do when presented with a loaded question.

Loaded? Government workers are workers. They do some kind of work.

[cdgt]

I had gotten about halfway through a long reply to Ibby, but lost it.

Short version now:

Ibby, you and Tinker argue in bad faith. You both accused me of hatred, when you cannot possibly know that to be true. I owe neither of you anything, certainly not expanded explanation, but you can be assured of my ridicule whenever you merit it, and the mood suits me.

I don't hate. And don't flatter yourselves, neither of you, nor the progressive left, is worthy of my hatred. I don't hate those I ideologically oppose because they simply don't merit such mental and emotional energy. I don't take you or them very seriously. In fact, my response is just ridicule. It's fun, and you all provide great source material. And I don't take myself too seriously either, which will doubtless be inconceivable to you.

Wealthy and powerful miniorities are always in charge. Definitionally, if they weren't in charge, they wouldn't be powerful. Money and wealth are not found far away. A minority in such a position of power and wealth is guaranteed. Last I checked, not too many leaders in the progressive left have taken vows of poverty. If you guys win, a wealthy and powerful minority will still be in charge. If they are later overthrown, a wealthy and powerful minority will take their place. And so on, ad nauseum.

Gridlock pits your wealthy and powerful minority (Obama, Reid, (until recently Pelosi), Maher, Soros, Jackson, Moore, et al) against another wealthy and powerful minority. (I'll let you fill in the blanks here--there are actually more than just two, but I'll keep it simple for you.) The energies spent warring against each other spares the republic the further loss of freedom and respect for the citizenry that would result in either side fully winning. Accordingly, I wish you both full and complete success in eliminating your opponents.

[Mr. Perfect]

That's what you do when presented with a loaded question.

Loaded? Government workers are workers. They do some kind of work.

You're the one that put levying taxes in there, not me. They are NOT entitled to raise taxes.

If someone is hired by the government they have a right to the agreed upon income. If they are terminated they no longer have a right to the income.

Anything else?

[cdgt]

Let me spell it out for those few of you with brains that cannot comprehend anything outside a binary set of conditions:

Just because I don't support your wealthy and powerful minority's coercion doesn't mean I support the coercion by your opponent's wealthy and powerful minority.

• Oh, and please do try and advance beyond your advocacy of coercion by "your team." You're as repugnant as those you oppose.

ETA:

Your tribute to logical thinking is touching:

-23kmhc3P8U

[YMix]

You're the one that put levying taxes in there, not me. They are NOT entitled to raise taxes.

If someone is hired by the government they have a right to the agreed upon income. If they are terminated they no longer have a right to the income.

Anything else?

The government has the power to raise taxes. Whether it is entitled to or not, that's something else. But I'm glad that you admit that government workers are entitled to the fruits of their own labor. Which is, of course, paid for with tax money. Any system can be gamed. This is a realistic position on this issue.

The only "fair" position is that each community is entitled to make its own arrangements. You can have your no-tax town, while the next town could go communist, if the residents are so inclined. Naturally, this will lead to a whole bunch of conflicts because human societies are rather complex and full of contradictory interests and their rather complex problems are not solved by simplistic statements, such as "I don't wanna pay taxes" or "Everybody should man the genuflect up and stop whining". Social justice is an attempt to fix some of these problems.

[Mr. Perfect]

The government has the power to raise taxes. Whether it is entitled to or not, that's something else. But I'm glad that you admit that government workers are entitled to the fruits of their own labor. Which is, of course, paid for with tax money. Any system can be gamed. This is a realistic position on this issue.

I may or may not understand you but our difference may be that in order for a government employee to be paid, and have a right to those fruits the fruits of course have to exist in the first place. IE a person who thinks that if they can land a job with a government means a government then has the power to tax is something that I do not agree with.

The only "fair" position is that each community is entitled to make its own arrangements. You can have your no-tax town, while the next town could go communist, if the residents are so inclined. Naturally, this will lead to a whole bunch of conflicts because human societies are rather complex and full of contradictory interests and their rather complex problems are not solved by simplistic statements, such as "I don't wanna pay taxes" or "Everybody should man the genuflect up and stop whining". Social justice is an attempt to fix some of these problems.

I guess then conservatism is social justice. I did not know that.

[Mr. Perfect]

Just because I don't support your wealthy and powerful minority's coercion doesn't mean I support the coercion by your opponent's wealthy and powerful minority.

I sure do.

[YMix]

IE a person who thinks that if they can land a job with a government means a government then has the power to tax is something that I do not agree with.

Any organization or individual who gather a certain amount of power can take resources from other organizations or individuals by force, whether you agree with it or not. You prefer to focus on government. Endovelico fears big business. To each his Marcus.

I guess then conservatism is social justice. I did not know that.

It could acquire that meaning.

[Mr. Perfect]

Any organization or individual who gather a certain amount of power can take resources from other organizations or individuals by force, whether you agree with it or not.

Not in America, except for health care thanks to the Obama mandate. I am against that also.

You prefer to focus on government. Endovelico fears big business. To each his Marcus.

I focus on whoever is doing it. Most places it is overwhelmingly the government.

It could acquire that meaning.

The meaning you gave would apply to conservatism as is and as it has been.

[Mr. Perfect]

Ibs has a good point, I had never connected "social justice" to nihilism, but there could be something there. Worth exploring.

[cdgt]

So far, it seems, social justice is:

• Something a 19th century jesuit said it meant in the context of the industrial age.
• Whatever billions of people who use it think it means, obviously.
• Achieving the status of a caged gerbil.
• A extremely localized version of federalism.
• Whatever it is, it loves coercion.
• Nihilism.

That obviously clear it all up, don't you think?

[Marcus]

So far, it seems, social justice is:

• Something a 19th century jesuit said it meant in the context of the industrial age.
• Whatever billions of people who use it think it means, obviously.
• Achieving the status of a caged gerbil.
• A extremely localized version of federalism.
• Whatever it is, it loves coercion.
• Nihilism.

That obviously clear it all up, don't you think?

Nice summary, CD . . . thumbs up . . .

[Nonc Hilaire]

Justice, or righteousness, is an inherent characteristic of God. The words are interchangeable in the Greek translations.

[Marcus]

Justice, or righteousness, is an inherent characteristic of God. The words are interchangeable in the Greek translations.

Well, cautiously . . so said the statement could assume a standard to which we hold God. Better said might be "what God is is righteousness and justice."

[Azrael]

Yes, you feel threatened, or you wouldn't ad hom about what you suppose are my motives, namely hatred. That's not saying my complaint was ridiculous--if you intended that, you could've actually tried to point out where it was ridiculous. No, you went ad hom about my motives, about which you cannot be certain. You're threatened, and it shows in your childish response.

Oh, btw, then which other subsets of justice do you not support?

Often when those in power speak about "Justice", they leave out social justice, the furtherance of which could threaten their prerogatives. When someone says that they are in favor of social justice, they aren't saying that they are against other "subsets of justice", they are saying that they support justice, including social justice.

[Marcus]

Often when those in power speak about "Justice", they leave out social justice, . .

Then they're not talking about Justice, simple as that.

[Mr. Perfect]

Yes, you feel threatened, or you wouldn't ad hom about what you suppose are my motives, namely hatred. That's not saying my complaint was ridiculous--if you intended that, you could've actually tried to point out where it was ridiculous. No, you went ad hom about my motives, about which you cannot be certain. You're threatened, and it shows in your childish response.

Oh, btw, then which other subsets of justice do you not support?

Often when those in power speak about "Justice", they leave out social justice, the furtherance of which could threaten their prerogatives. When someone says that they are in favor of social justice, they aren't saying that they are against other "subsets of justice", they are saying that they support justice, including social justice.

What is social justice?

[Azrael]

Often when those in power speak about "Justice", they leave out social justice, . .

Then they're not talking about Justice, simple as that.

Well, they wouldn't be talking about Justice in its entirety, but could be talking about a "subset of Justice".

The statement "It is unjust to steal someone's wallet." relates to "personal" Justice. The statement "It is unjust to treat people as inferior because of their race.", relates to Social Justice, because it relates to a structural problem with society, rather than just an isolated incident between individuals.

[Marcus]

Well, they wouldn't be talking about Justice in its entirety, but could be talking about a "subset of Justice".

The statement "It is unjust to steal someone's wallet." relates to "personal" Justice. The statement "It is unjust to treat people as inferior because of their race.", relates to Social Justice, because it relates to a structural problem with society, rather than just an isolated incident between individuals.

But . . if all The Moral Law can be summed up, as Christ said it could, in two commandments—to love God and to love one's neighbor as oneself—then Justice has nothing to do with race. We are all neighbors, one to another.

[Azrael]

Well, they wouldn't be talking about Justice in its entirety, but could be talking about a "subset of Justice".

The statement "It is unjust to steal someone's wallet." relates to "personal" Justice. The statement "It is unjust to treat people as inferior because of their race.", relates to Social Justice, because it relates to a structural problem with society, rather than just an isolated incident between individuals.

But . . if all The Moral Law can be summed up, as Christ said it could, in two commandments—to love God and to love one's neighbor as oneself—then Justice has nothing to do with race.

But it did under Jim Crow. An entire race was denied Justice. It wasn't just isolated incidents of one person treating another unjustly where race was not an issue.

We are all neighbors, one to another.

Yes. And when a group, such as a race or ethnicity, is "locked out of the neighborhood", that is a social justice issue.

[Marcus]

But it did under Jim Crow. An entire race was denied Justice. It wasn't just isolated incidents of one person treating another unjustly where race was not an issue.

We are all neighbors, one to another.

Yes. And when a group, such as a race or ethnicity, is "locked out of the neighborhood", that is a social justice issue.

You're singing to the choir, Az, I was there, I saw Jim Crow first-hand. Black folks weren't denied "social justice," they were denied Justice plain and simple. If Justice prevailed, there'd be no such thing as racism, no need for "social justice."

[Ibrahim]

But it did under Jim Crow. An entire race was denied Justice. It wasn't just isolated incidents of one person treating another unjustly where race was not an issue.

We are all neighbors, one to another.

Yes. And when a group, such as a race or ethnicity, is "locked out of the neighborhood", that is a social justice issue.

You're singing to the choir, Az, I was there, I saw Jim Crow first-hand. Black folks weren't denied "social justice," they were denied Justice plain and simple. If Justice prevailed, there'd be no such thing as racism, no need for "social justice."

Social justice is a sub-category of justice. When you try acquire justice for marginalized groups, this is "social justice," when you try to identify and punish criminals this is "criminal justice," etc. All of these things fall under the heading "justice", social justice simply refers to a specific type of work underneath that larger umbrella.