Anyone care to define social justice...?

[noddy]

while all the *individual* interpretations of social justice are fine for what they are, i thought we had this nifty system of politics and legality that allowed all these divergent priorities to squabble it out and come to an agreement on which things are enforced across the entire multicultural system good n hard.

which does beg the question, if you aint happy with the outcomes of that, what exactly are you proposing?

im complety and utterly jaded to pleasant sounding mission statements, tasty details on how that mission statement becomes reality is where it gets interesting.

Civil Rights was fought and won within the Republican Democracy of the United States. So social justice was served by this system. Still inequities abound, a drug war that currently enslaves more people than were enslaved under actual slavery for instance.

Ending the drug war would be social justice. And no, it's not subjective justice. If people who are doing something that doesn't hurt anyone are being locked in a cage to be raped by very mean and bad people, that's not justice. It's not subject to opinion. Anyone who says that a small time pot dealer going to prison is 'justice' is simply wrong. Their opinion does not hold equal validity with the person who thinks that in a free society, someone should be able to smoke or sell some cannabis. We can view this because we can stack up the two crimes next to one another and judge which is worse.

Selling pot vs Locking someone in a cage with a rapist.

Locking someone in a cage with a rapist is clearly and obviously the greater crime. So the fact that this punitive measure disproportionately targets certain communities makes the injustice a SOCIAL issue.

no real argument from me except the usual one - i believe the social right of healthcare and the social right of libertine lifestyle choices are contradictory, not for my own beliefs but from the history of my country and what happened to us when we got social healthcare... it went from easy going attitudes to puritan ones and it shits me.

social healthcare is expensive and the aging baby boomer demographic is making it more so, the biggest "low hanging" fruit is self inflicted need for healthcare and thats alcohol,smokes,drugs and fatties... the governments role in our life choices is getting more so, not less so, and their isnt a politician on the horizon over here who is prepared to stand up to the abuse from the left and the right for doing so.

the accident and emergency departments of hospitals and the psych wards are full of self inflicteds and whilst i PERSONALLY dont believe they are the magority of alcohol or dope users and i personally never overdosed or sent myself wack when i was heavy into it, its the way the public arguments go and its something the puritan right and left agree on which makes it an easy target..

the only socially liberal guy im aware of in your federal politics is ron paul and he gets painted as a bedroom intruding social conservative.. so whats that tell ya.

[Enki]

no real argument from me except the usual one - i believe the social right of healthcare and the social right of libertine lifestyle choices are contradictory, not for my own beliefs but from the history of my country and what happened to us when we got social healthcare... it went from easy going attitudes to puritan ones and it shits me.

Not at all. 80% of illicit drugs are consumed by 20% of the using population. Treating the 20% of users that are addicts is FAR FAR FAR cheaper than waging a war that spans the entire globe. People THINK what you are saying, but the facts don't bear it out to be true. Drug interdiction is a complete failure. Colombia, Mexico, etc... will be moving toward legalization within the next couple of years. And I have some knowledge of some inside stuff regarding the State Dept and the UN that says that the US and UN are not actually opposed to it, despite what Obama said at the Summit in Colombia. What most people don't know is that the quotes from Obama about how we will not be legalizing drugs came right after President Santos said that the option was on the table. These latin American countries are tired of the social destruction caused by the drug war. Legalizing marijuana and hemp can provide replacement crops for Coca. Interdiction is more expensive for a nation than legalization and treatment. There isn't really a fact based argument to the contrary anywhere in the world.

social healthcare is expensive and the aging baby boomer demographic is making it more so, the biggest "low hanging" fruit is self inflicted need for healthcare and thats alcohol,smokes,drugs and fatties... the governments role in our life choices is getting more so, not less so, and their isnt a politician on the horizon over here who is prepared to stand up to the abuse from the left and the right for doing so.

Well, that's the excesses of Australia. There are a lot of ways to 'influence' that sort of thing without actually 'controlling' it. You know, like accurate health labels on food. genuflect putting up how many calories is in something, that's a joke. Calories don't make you fat the way everyone thinks they do.

the accident and emergency departments of hospitals and the psych wards are full of self inflicteds and whilst i PERSONALLY dont believe they are the magority of alcohol or dope users and i personally never overdosed or sent myself wack when i was heavy into it, its the way the public arguments go and its something the puritan right and left agree on which makes it an easy target..

Treatment remains cheaper than interdiction.

the only socially liberal guy im aware of in your federal politics is ron paul and he gets painted as a bedroom intruding social conservative.. so whats that tell ya.

Its true. We're working to change that.

[cdgt]

Tempting to excerpt this, but instead I'll try the color method...

(And as I do this, I know that Endo and my worldviews are hopelessly incompatible...)

Thank you noddy for having had the trouble of reading what I wrote. Being ignored means either that you are so far off the point that it is a waste of time responding, or that your point is difficult to disagree with. I would like to think that the latter is the case, but the way this thread has gone makes me doubt it...

I'm going to give it another try.

Social justice only makes sense if one considers that there are social rights. In which case social justice is guaranteeing that every person's social rights are respected.

Are there social rights? The answer to that may vary but I would like to think that there are, and that the most important are:

- right to live
- right to have your basic needs (relating to your survival) satisfied, such as shelter, food and clothing
- right to work, which may mean a productive activity, or an activity beneficial to the community
- right to access to proper health care
- right to education

Does having a right to something mean that it must be free or provided solely by the state? Obviously not. It means that it must be guaranteed even beyond any person's ability to pay for it. I pay for what I need and if I don't have enough to pay for all I need within the realm of social rights, than the community will provide the difference. So, is education free of charge? No. But you may not be denied access to education if you can't pay it in full. The same for health care. Putting this into practice would be difficult, but not impossible. Based on real income and family size, people could be divided in, say, five categories, paying from zero to one hundred percent (0%, 25%, 50%, 75% or 100%) of the costs of said services. Your contribution may be different from category to category. A low income family may pay 0% of education and health care, but pay 25% of housing costs and 50% of basic food. Exceptional health costs might be handled a bit differently, requiring maybe the use of insurance. A bit bureaucratic maybe, and requiring a good control of people's income declarations, but possible.

What rights exist outside of a social construct? Social justice == justice; social rights == rights; social community == community.

You are correct. Social justice is as equally ridiculous as social rights.

May vary indeed. Bingo.

Your list implies other rights:

• The right to determine what others have in excess and confiscate it. With force, if need be.
  The right to be in the majority in determining rules of excess and confiscation. (If you are in the minority, heh, you are now in need of some social justice! Wait your turn, and exact your revenge--do try to restrain yourself from excessive violence.)
  The right to expect others to take care of your basic needs.*

• * Similar rights are shared by a caged gerbil, for example.

Heh.

Social rights and justice achieved by force. This is so much different than elites forcing their will on others.

[Ibrahim]

All government is coercive. As we now know, social justice was coined during the revolutionary 19th century, when coercive monarchies gave way to various forms of democracy, as well as the birth of coercive socialist systems of government (e.g. communism). It was competing idea in a sea of coercive systems.

Since government is inherently coercive, it seems reasonable to many people to coerce factory owners into paying fair wages and giving bathroom breaks, or coercing millionaires to pay disproportionately for the maintenance of the homeless and disabled. The basic premise, for the Jesuits, was that sanctity of life supersedes property rights for the well-to-do. Communists would argue that the mass of people collectively own everything, and the wealthy have merely stolen in, and monarch would say that everything belongs to them anyway.

Not sure exactly what liberatrians think. Basically the seem to believe that they deserve exactly what they have, and that they got it all on their own, and don't want to give any away. Well that's a fine self-serving philosophy, but it isn't exactly a critique of social justice.

[Miss_Faucie_Fishtits]

Let's make this rather simple.......

You have the right to clock anyone off who insults and annoys you.....

You have the right to float in the wreckage without anyone deigning to jeer and mock you for it......

You have the right to your own piece of flotsam without having to share, nor to thank anyone for it.......

You have the right to hang on until you let go and drown......

Duty: you have the responsibility to do the above without complaint........

[cdgt]

Coercion has been bad historically. The powerful coerce the weak. The weak need social justice to enforce their social rights in their social community. Solution? Coercion.*

The weak seek to unite to become powerful to coerce the formerly powerful.

The weak console themselves that the reason coercion didn't work in the past is that the wrong people were in charge. Amazingly, there is a long line of folks willing to say that they are the right ones to put in charge. Plus one cannot ignore the role of get-even-with-em-ism, which helps rationalize this whole thing.

So coercion is enshrined as accepted by (nearly) all, as justice was never the point, just a tool to wield their unique form coercion to their unique ends, for which social justice was merely moral cover.

And so we have a perfect platform for future peace, happiness, universal brotherhood and kindness. And coercion, because nearly everybody accepts that as a good and righteous thing. As long as they wield it.

When the social left is replaced by the social facsists, the social facists will truly appreciate them paving the social way. Bravo! Bravo!

As for me, Viva gridlock!

• * Btw, have y'all invented the term social coercion yet?

[Ibrahim]

Coercion has been bad historically. The powerful coerce the weak. The weak need social justice to enforce their social rights in their social community. Solution? Coercion.*

Leninist pamphleteers famously phrased it as "who, whom?" Which is to say "who may do what to whom?" It's the basic question of political society.

The weak seek to unite to become powerful to coerce the formerly powerful.

The weak console themselves that the reason coercion didn't work in the past is that the wrong people were in charge.

The idea is the diffusion of power. The most corrupt systems concentrated power in the smallest possible number of individuals. The more people you involve in the political process the less exploitative it becomes overall, or so most democratic, social democracy, and social justice advocates would argue. Communism is based on the premise of the total dissolution of power among all citizens, but in practice this only reverted to a dictatorship. Social democracies like those of Scandinavia, are working examples of social justice and social democracy in action.

Amazingly, there is a long line of folks willing to say that they are the right ones to put in charge.

There is always somebody in charge. You simply want the people who are wealthy and powerful to be in charge, and you don't want their wealth reallocation by socialism, or their power over the weak limited via social justice.

Plus one cannot ignore the role of get-even-with-em-ism, which helps rationalize this whole thing.

That is not the justification. The justification is that human lives take precedence over property.

So coercion is enshrined as accepted by (nearly) all, as justice was never the point, just a tool to wield their unique form coercion to their unique ends, for which social justice was merely moral cover.

False. Justice is precisely the point, and a system which includes as many people in the political process is less coercive, less exploitative, and therefore more just. Or so goes the theory.

And so we have a perfect platform for future peace, happiness, universal brotherhood and kindness. And coercion, because nearly everybody accepts that as a good and righteous thing. As long as they wield it.

You also want coercion, you just want it for smaller groups of people. Modern (i.e. 20th century) conservatism is essentially just a reaction to socialism, and therefore seeks to challenge ideologies like universal democracy, social justice, liberation theology, or any other movement that seeks to redistribute wealth and power more broadly. It is the defense of the wealthy minority to retain their power and privilege. This is, of course, done via coercion.

When the social left is replaced by the social facsists, the social facists will truly appreciate them paving the social way.

Fascists are conservative. All famous modern fascists (Hitler, Mussolini, Suharto, various South American examples) were backed by business and banking interests in their nations to stop socialist movements from appropriating their wealth.

What you mean to say is that social democracy or social justice movements terminate in a Stalinist/Maoist style of communist dictatorship. Except of course this didn't happen in Iceland or New Zealand.

As for me, Viva gridlock!

This is ideologically consistent. As the American economy spools down, and the country is beset with increasingly sharp divides between extremely wealthy and desperately poor, pressure will mount to reallocate some of that wealth. As you oppose that, a paralyzed government is most beneficial to you. It prevents passing legislation that benefits the poor. The present corecive structure stay in place, and are not replaced with coercive structures who benefit different people.

[cdgt]

Coercion has been bad historically. The powerful coerce the weak. The weak need social justice to enforce their social rights in their social community. Solution? Coercion.*

Leninist pamphleteers famously phrased it as "who, whom?" Which is to say "who may do what to whom?" It's the basic question of political society.

That could be the problem. Asking the wrong questions.

The weak seek to unite to become powerful to coerce the formerly powerful.

The weak console themselves that the reason coercion didn't work in the past is that the wrong people were in charge.

The idea is the diffusion of power. The most corrupt systems concentrated power in the smallest possible number of individuals. The more people you involve in the political process the less exploitative it becomes overall, or so most democratic, social democracy, and social justice advocates would argue. Communism is based on the premise of the total dissolution of power among all citizens, but in practice this only reverted to a dictatorship. Social democracies like those of Scandinavia, are working examples of social justice and social democracy in action.

This is nearly a complete argument for federalism. (The social democracy crap won't work in the U.S., except in isolated welfare states that will fail.) Come join us in diffusing power. You will have to shed your tendencies toward desiring to centralize power. Painful, but you gotta keep in mind that the next durian won't have that much leverage in imposing their idiocy.

Amazingly, there is a long line of folks willing to say that they are the right ones to put in charge.

There is always somebody in charge. ...

And they're all flawed monkeys.

... You simply want the people who are wealthy and powerful to be in charge, and you don't want their wealth reallocation by socialism, or their power over the weak limited via social justice.

And you can't resist projection and baseless ad hom.

Plus one cannot ignore the role of get-even-with-em-ism, which helps rationalize this whole thing.

That is not the justification. The justification is that human lives take precedence over property.

Interesting that the creating the precedence of human lives always involves taking over property. Odd that.

So coercion is enshrined as accepted by (nearly) all, as justice was never the point, just a tool to wield their unique form coercion to their unique ends, for which social justice was merely moral cover.

False. Justice is precisely the point, and a system which includes as many people in the political process is less coercive, less exploitative, and therefore more just. Or so goes the theory.

Selective injustice is the point, the theory is just cover.

And so we have a perfect platform for future peace, happiness, universal brotherhood and kindness. And coercion, because nearly everybody accepts that as a good and righteous thing. As long as they wield it.

You also want coercion, you just want it for smaller groups of people.

Nope. Projection.

Modern (i.e. 20th century) conservatism is essentially just a reaction to socialism, and therefore seeks to challenge ideologies like universal democracy, social justice, liberation theology, or any other movement that seeks to redistribute wealth and power more broadly.

Could be. I don't entirely fit in there. But redistribution == coercion, with winners and losers and flawed monkeys implementing it. Must sound like a plan to you, but not to me.

It is the defense of the wealthy minority to retain their power and privilege.

I couldn't care less about the wealthy minority.

This is, of course, done via coercion.

If so, you want to imitate them. Flawed monkey see, flawed monkey do. Brilliant.

When the social left is replaced by the social facsists, the social facists will truly appreciate them paving the social way.

Fascists are conservative.

Baloney. Except in your straw conservatism.

All famous modern fascists (Hitler, Mussolini, Suharto, various South American examples) were backed by business and banking interests in their nations to stop socialist movements from appropriating their wealth.

Yawn.

What you mean to say is that social democracy or social justice movements terminate in a Stalinist/Maoist style of communist dictatorship.

No. I mean to say that in a really big, diverse country like the US (not dorky little scandavian countries, or island nations) that there is a ton of leverage in the federal government that will be used to apply coercion. Maybe social justice do-gooders today, likely social fascists tomorrow. In any event, flawed monkeys get more leverage to apply coercion. This will end well, naturally.

Except of course this didn't happen in Iceland or New Zealand.

As if that applied to the U.S.

As for me, Viva gridlock!

This is ideologically consistent. As the American economy spools down, and the country is beset with increasingly sharp divides between extremely wealthy and desperately poor, pressure will mount to reallocate some of that wealth. As you oppose that, a paralyzed government is most beneficial to you. It prevents passing legislation that benefits the poor. The present corecive structure stay in place, and are not replaced with coercive structures who benefit different people.

Again, your imputation of motive is laughable.

Flawed monkeys screwed this up. As the economy spools down, different flawed monkeys will manipulate increasingly large and angry groups of flawed monkeys to let them use coercion to "benefit the poor." More flawed coercive structures will be constructed, and the only guarantee is more coercion.

I just want to keep the flawed monkeys in charge expending their energies on each other. The less they accomplish for our benefit, the less we are harmed. Viva gridlock!

[Miss_Faucie_Fishtits]

Well, that's the excesses of Australia. There are a lot of ways to 'influence' that sort of thing without actually 'controlling' it. You know, like accurate health labels on food. genuflect putting up how many calories is in something, that's a joke. Calories don't make you fat the way everyone thinks they do.

And they don't even do that right. Instead they create something called a 'suggested serving size' and define it in any way they like. True, mere calorie content is not a valuable piece of information for expressing food quality, but if they're misrepresenting that; what parameter can they give you that you would believe?........

[Ibrahim]

Coercion has been bad historically. The powerful coerce the weak. The weak need social justice to enforce their social rights in their social community. Solution? Coercion.*

Leninist pamphleteers famously phrased it as "who, whom?" Which is to say "who may do what to whom?" It's the basic question of political society.

That could be the problem. Asking the wrong questions.

Could be your problem.

The weak seek to unite to become powerful to coerce the formerly powerful.

The weak console themselves that the reason coercion didn't work in the past is that the wrong people were in charge.

The idea is the diffusion of power. The most corrupt systems concentrated power in the smallest possible number of individuals. The more people you involve in the political process the less exploitative it becomes overall, or so most democratic, social democracy, and social justice advocates would argue. Communism is based on the premise of the total dissolution of power among all citizens, but in practice this only reverted to a dictatorship. Social democracies like those of Scandinavia, are working examples of social justice and social democracy in action.

This is nearly a complete argument for federalism. (The social democracy crap won't work in the U.S., except in isolated welfare states that will fail.) Come join us in diffusing power. You will have to shed your tendencies toward desiring to centralize power. Painful, but you gotta keep in mind that the next durian won't have that much leverage in imposing their idiocy.

You don't want to diffuse power. You want "gridlock," which means the maintaining the status quo.

... You simply want the people who are wealthy and powerful to be in charge, and you don't want their wealth reallocation by socialism, or their power over the weak limited via social justice.

And you can't resist projection and baseless ad hom.

You are the one deriding social justice, therefore I infer that you oppose the objective of social justice (on the basis that it is "coercive"). Even if I am wrong this would simply be me misstating your position, not "ad hom." "Ad hom" would be if I said you only held this position because you were fat, or something like that.

Plus one cannot ignore the role of get-even-with-em-ism, which helps rationalize this whole thing.

That is not the justification. The justification is that human lives take precedence over property.

Interesting that the creating the precedence of human lives always involves taking over property. Odd that.

Not odd. The wealthy seek to concentrate more wealth at the expense of the majority. Socialists want to transfer that wealth to the majority at the expense of the wealthy. "Taking over property" is at the heart of both positions. Painting the other side as thieves is par for the course, be it Leninism or Objectivism.

So coercion is enshrined as accepted by (nearly) all, as justice was never the point, just a tool to wield their unique form coercion to their unique ends, for which social justice was merely moral cover.

False. Justice is precisely the point, and a system which includes as many people in the political process is less coercive, less exploitative, and therefore more just. Or so goes the theory.

Selective injustice is the point, the theory is just cover.

Incorrect. The point is about which outcome is just. Remember, the English legal and political tradition is adversarial. We are talking about two sides making a case about what represents justice. Some people pick the striking workers, some people pick the factory owner.

And so we have a perfect platform for future peace, happiness, universal brotherhood and kindness. And coercion, because nearly everybody accepts that as a good and righteous thing. As long as they wield it.

You also want coercion, you just want it for smaller groups of people.

Nope. Projection.

Claiming "projection" here is not a coherent. If your position is not as I have described then clearly state it. I guarantee you haven't invented some new breakthrough in human politics that avoids the coercive nature of all human civilization.

Modern (i.e. 20th century) conservatism is essentially just a reaction to socialism, and therefore seeks to challenge ideologies like universal democracy, social justice, liberation theology, or any other movement that seeks to redistribute wealth and power more broadly.

Could be. I don't entirely fit in there. But redistribution == coercion, with winners and losers and flawed monkeys implementing it. Must sound like a plan to you, but not to me.

Again, all systems involve coercion. You just want different people to win/lose.

It is the defense of the wealthy minority to retain their power and privilege.

I couldn't care less about the wealthy minority.

You care enough to defend them.

This is, of course, done via coercion.

If so, you want to imitate them. Flawed monkey see, flawed monkey do. Brilliant.

You're not the first person to call me a monkey on this forum, and you're wrong nonetheless. You also believe in coercion, unless you are some kind of anarchist. Please tell me if you are.

When the social left is replaced by the social facsists, the social facists will truly appreciate them paving the social way.

Fascists are conservative.

Baloney. Except in your straw conservatism.

No, this is basic history here.

All famous modern fascists (Hitler, Mussolini, Suharto, various South American examples) were backed by business and banking interests in their nations to stop socialist movements from appropriating their wealth.

Yawn.

It is a fact. It contradicts your arguments. You can't dispute it, so you what else can you say?

What you mean to say is that social democracy or social justice movements terminate in a Stalinist/Maoist style of communist dictatorship.

No. I mean to say that in a really big, diverse country like the US (not dorky little scandavian countries, or island nations) that there is a ton of leverage in the federal government that will be used to apply coercion.

There is already coercion, so this comment is meaningless. Except of course that you dismiss working examples of alternatives by mere say so. Simply ignoring real-world examples and asserting that you are right anyway is pretty much a white flag.



Maybe social justice do-gooders today, likely social fascists tomorrow. In any event, flawed monkeys get more leverage to apply coercion. This will end well, naturally.

Except of course this didn't happen in Iceland or New Zealand.

As if that applied to the U.S.

Well, it exposes your unsubstantiated claim that any form of social democracy would become a "fascist" (by which you really mean communist) state. But in the more specific sense you are right that it doesn't apply to the US because Americans have typically supported the entrenched economic and political elite rather than directly challenge them. Social justice in the US has only amounted in some grudging social reforms (women voting, e.g. bare-minimum equality for blacks and homosexuals), never serious reform of the economic or political structure. The closest the US came was under FDR and never close since.

As for me, Viva gridlock!

This is ideologically consistent. As the American economy spools down, and the country is beset with increasingly sharp divides between extremely wealthy and desperately poor, pressure will mount to reallocate some of that wealth. As you oppose that, a paralyzed government is most beneficial to you. It prevents passing legislation that benefits the poor. The present corecive structure stay in place, and are not replaced with coercive structures who benefit different people.

Again, your imputation of motive is laughable.

Again, you are unwilling or unable to coherently state your actual position then. You hate the concepts of social justice and social democracy, hence your inept attacks on them, therefore I place you in the opposite political "camp." If you honestly and directly state you views then we will be able to clarify this matter. If you're afraid to do so, just say that. It will save time. Just don't do a bunch of painful-to-watch ducking and dodging.

Flawed monkeys screwed this up. As the economy spools down, different flawed monkeys will manipulate increasingly large and angry groups of flawed monkeys to let them use coercion to "benefit the poor." More flawed coercive structures will be constructed, and the only guarantee is more coercion.

Again, this is not "guaranteed" except by your say-so. There are plenty of nations in the Western world that are both socialist and in which individuals possess more rights and freedoms than in the US. You can dismiss all the other nations you want, but the fact remains that they beat the US in a number of statistical categories, and the police can't strip-search you for making a U-turn.

I just want to keep the flawed monkeys in charge expending their energies on each other. The less they accomplish for our benefit, the less we are harmed.

False. All gridlock does is maintain the status quo, which, since you support gridlock, you must also support. This is very elementary logic, which you dismiss as "laughable" and "projection."

[Mr. Perfect]

Jesus also wanted his followers to pay "taxes", as implemented and ordained by the Divine center. Share your stuff, give to the poor, the weak, the sick...Be each others servant. Wash some dirty feet.

It is not written anywhere that modern people should not organise this TLC using their government to coordinate it all. People doing cry-baby because they don't want to pay their fair amount of taxes to make it possible, are not Christians. Or they should not be citizens of a large nation state with 300 million people of which many will always need TLC. They should live in small tribes where they can do charity entirely and only on their own terms. They are, in fact, not Americans.

What is a fair share of taxes? What share of gov't expenditures is "TLC"? After the trillions of Obama STPN and the millions left in poverty why is trying harder better?

[Mr. Perfect]

Thank you noddy for having had the trouble of reading what I wrote. Being ignored means either that you are so far off the point that it is a waste of time responding, or that your point is difficult to disagree with. I would like to think that the latter is the case, but the way this thread has gone makes me doubt it...

I'm going to give it another try.

Social justice only makes sense if one considers that there are social rights. In which case social justice is guaranteeing that every person's social rights are respected.

Are there social rights? The answer to that may vary but I would like to think that there are, and that the most important are:

- right to live
- right to have your basic needs (relating to your survival) satisfied, such as shelter, food and clothing
- right to work, which may mean a productive activity, or an activity beneficial to the community
- right to access to proper health care
- right to education

Does having a right to something mean that it must be free or provided solely by the state? Obviously not. It means that it must be guaranteed even beyond any person's ability to pay for it. I pay for what I need and if I don't have enough to pay for all I need within the realm of social rights, than the community will provide the difference. So, is education free of charge? No. But you may not be denied access to education if you can't pay it in full. The same for health care. Putting this into practice would be difficult, but not impossible. Based on real income and family size, people could be divided in, say, five categories, paying from zero to one hundred percent (0%, 25%, 50%, 75% or 100%) of the costs of said services. Your contribution may be different from category to category. A low income family may pay 0% of education and health care, but pay 25% of housing costs and 50% of basic food. Exceptional health costs might be handled a bit differently, requiring maybe the use of insurance. A bit bureaucratic maybe, and requiring a good control of people's income declarations, but possible.

What about the right to the fruits of my labor?

What if social justice makes me dependent on government when I could have been independent?

[Endovelico]

What about the right to the fruits of my labor?

What if social justice makes me dependent on government when I could have been independent?

Social justice doesn't deprive anyone from the fruits of his/her labour. The fruits of your labour are tied to your living in a community, and would not exist without it. Therefore you are asked to contribute to the preservation of said community and to the subsistence of all its members. It's like paying rent for your office, or the fees in your country club.

Governments (or the community) have a right to require any able person to contribute to society if he/she is getting help from the community. That could be done by means of community work. If someone is happy with the satisfaction of basic needs and with doing community work, so be it.

[Mr. Perfect]

What about the right to the fruits of my labor?

What if social justice makes me dependent on government when I could have been independent?

Social justice doesn't deprive anyone from the fruits of his/her labour.

How come every time I turn around social justice people want to raise my taxes, usually on a completely arbitrary basis?

The fruits of your labour are tied to your living in a community, and would not exist without it.

I agree. However when I produce income it is based on my providing a good or service for a market rate, all parties are justly compensated. No debts are left over.

Therefore you are asked to contribute to the preservation of said community and to the subsistence of all its members. It's like paying rent for your office, or the fees in your country club.

Asked, or required? Who determines what the rent is and how is it determined how much?

Governments (or the community) have a right to require any able person to contribute to society if he/she is getting help from the community.

Ok, so now we have the word "require". How much is required? How is it determined? Who determines it? How can I ever say that I am entitled to the fruits of my labor if I am required to hand it over to someone else?

That could be done by means of community work. If someone is happy with the satisfaction of basic needs and with doing community work, so be it.

What if I am happy and satisfied without doing community work?

[cdgt]

You don't want to diffuse power. You want "gridlock," which means the maintaining the status quo.

No. Try paying attention. Diffusing power is not in the cards, specially when folk are inventing their own special versions of justice, rights and such, concentrating power centrally.

Gridlock is the only pragmatic means of deferring the inevitable.

... You simply want the people who are wealthy and powerful to be in charge, and you don't want their wealth reallocation by socialism, or their power over the weak limited via social justice.

And you can't resist projection and baseless ad hom.

You are the one deriding social justice, therefore I infer that you oppose the objective of social justice (on the basis that it is "coercive"). Even if I am wrong this would simply be me misstating your position, not "ad hom." "Ad hom" would be if I said you only held this position because you were fat, or something like that.

Wrong. It is ad hom because you say I want the wealthy and powerful in to be in charge.

Interesting that the creating the precedence of human lives always involves taking over property. Odd that.

Not odd. The wealthy seek to concentrate more wealth at the expense of the majority. Socialists want to transfer that wealth to the majority at the expense of the wealthy. "Taking over property" is at the heart of both positions. Painting the other side as thieves is par for the course, be it Leninism or Objectivism.

So you agree the objectives are material, not any precedence of human lives.

So coercion is enshrined as accepted by (nearly) all, as justice was never the point, just a tool to wield their unique form coercion to their unique ends, for which social justice was merely moral cover.

False. Justice is precisely the point, and a system which includes as many people in the political process is less coercive, less exploitative, and therefore more just. Or so goes the theory.

Selective injustice is the point, the theory is just cover.

Incorrect. The point is about which outcome is just. Remember, the English legal and political tradition is adversarial. We are talking about two sides making a case about what represents justice. Some people pick the striking workers, some people pick the factory owner.

You just contradicted yourself. I wonder if you can figure out where?

And so we have a perfect platform for future peace, happiness, universal brotherhood and kindness. And coercion, because nearly everybody accepts that as a good and righteous thing. As long as they wield it.

You also want coercion, you just want it for smaller groups of people.

Nope. Projection.

Claiming "projection" here is not a coherent. If your position is not as I have described then clearly state it. I guarantee you haven't invented some new breakthrough in human politics that avoids the coercive nature of all human civilization.

Why should I state it? I have all sorts of folk like you and Tinkles ready to enumerate my motives and objectives. If I do state them, it won't be to those who compromise their intellectual integrity to win points on an internet forum.

Modern (i.e. 20th century) conservatism is essentially just a reaction to socialism, and therefore seeks to challenge ideologies like universal democracy, social justice, liberation theology, or any other movement that seeks to redistribute wealth and power more broadly.

Could be. I don't entirely fit in there. But redistribution == coercion, with winners and losers and flawed monkeys implementing it. Must sound like a plan to you, but not to me.

Again, all systems involve coercion. You just want different people to win/lose.

Wrong. Again.

It is the defense of the wealthy minority to retain their power and privilege.

I couldn't care less about the wealthy minority.

You care enough to defend them.

Projection. I have not defended the wealthy minority. I have ridiculed the progressive left's sloppy terminology invented and used by their own wealthy minority. I can ridicule the wealthy minority as well, but they don't shriek quite as much, nor do they respond to a discussion of terminology with shrieking and ad homs.

This is, of course, done via coercion.

If so, you want to imitate them. Flawed monkey see, flawed monkey do. Brilliant.

You're not the first person to call me a monkey on this forum, and you're wrong nonetheless. You also believe in coercion, unless you are some kind of anarchist. Please tell me if you are.

I'm not calling you a monkey. I'm calling everyone a flawed monkey, and did so in a post where I actually said you were absolutely correct. But you are quick to assume a personal insult. Oh well. Btw, I was alluding to a theme Torchwood has used from time to time.

No, this is basic history here.
...
It is a fact. It contradicts your arguments. You can't dispute it, so you what else can you say?

It's basic propaganda. Largely accepted propaganda, I'll give you that. But it's another thread.

What you mean to say is that social democracy or social justice movements terminate in a Stalinist/Maoist style of communist dictatorship.

No. I mean to say that in a really big, diverse country like the US (not dorky little scandavian countries, or island nations) that there is a ton of leverage in the federal government that will be used to apply coercion.

There is already coercion, so this comment is meaningless. Except of course that you dismiss working examples of alternatives by mere say so. Simply ignoring real-world examples and asserting that you are right anyway is pretty much a white flag.

You clearly don't understand what I'm saying.

... Well, it exposes your unsubstantiated claim that any form of social democracy would become a "fascist" (by which you really mean communist) state. But in the more specific sense you are right that it doesn't apply to the US because Americans have typically supported the entrenched economic and political elite rather than directly challenge them. Social justice in the US has only amounted in some grudging social reforms (women voting, e.g. bare-minimum equality for blacks and homosexuals), never serious reform of the economic or political structure. The closest the US came was under FDR and never close since.

I didn't say "any form of social democracy would become a "fascist"". I said, as a prediction, that the progressive left, by centralizign power, will pave the way for less "noble minded," business aligned fascists to take control. It was prediciton about the US and its future.

And you're an durian if you think I mean communist by fascist. No, business interests will be involved. The leverage of a country the size of the US will draw business / fascist interests. It is simply more economical to control the regulation in a large market to your favor than actuall compete. Centralizing power and accepting coercion as legitimate is paving the way.

As for me, Viva gridlock!

This is ideologically consistent. As the American economy spools down, and the country is beset with increasingly sharp divides between extremely wealthy and desperately poor, pressure will mount to reallocate some of that wealth. As you oppose that, a paralyzed government is most beneficial to you. It prevents passing legislation that benefits the poor. The present corecive structure stay in place, and are not replaced with coercive structures who benefit different people.

Again, your imputation of motive is laughable.

Again, you are unwilling or unable to coherently state your actual position then. You hate the concepts of social justice and social democracy, hence your inept attacks on them, therefore I place you in the opposite political "camp." If you honestly and directly state you views then we will be able to clarify this matter. If you're afraid to do so, just say that. It will save time. Just don't do a bunch of painful-to-watch ducking and dodging.

I am unwilling to state them to childish interlocutors like yourself and Tinker who quickly and wrongly ascribe motive and intent (both resorting to the word "hate") because you can't conceive of anyone who doesn't fit into your left/right paradigm. Because I ridicule the left, you assume I am the worst stereotypes of the right. Infantile thinking, full of projection. You can't imagine anyone more nuanced than yourselves.

Flawed monkeys screwed this up. As the economy spools down, different flawed monkeys will manipulate increasingly large and angry groups of flawed monkeys to let them use coercion to "benefit the poor." More flawed coercive structures will be constructed, and the only guarantee is more coercion.

Again, this is not "guaranteed" except by your say-so. There are plenty of nations in the Western world that are both socialist and in which individuals possess more rights and freedoms than in the US. You can dismiss all the other nations you want, but the fact remains that they beat the US in a number of statistical categories, and the police can't strip-search you for making a U-turn.

You just guaranteed coercion as a fact of life. That philosophy is going to encourage it.

I just want to keep the flawed monkeys in charge expending their energies on each other. The less they accomplish for our benefit, the less we are harmed.

False. All gridlock does is maintain the status quo, which, since you support gridlock, you must also support. This is very elementary logic, which you dismiss as "laughable" and "projection."

Explained above. You don't get it. Oh well.

[Dioscuri]

queue dioscuri and his tribute to ruthless authoritarianism and how we all need it and love it... vomit.

My tributes to ruthless authoritarianism? Oh, hardly!

To be an authoritarian is to believe that people stray from proper obedience and must be forced back into line. I believe nothing of the kind.

There is no straying, no deviation whatsoever. Everyone obeys, at all times and without fail.

[YMix]

Are government employees are entitled to the fruits of their labors (levying taxes etc)?

[Mr. Perfect]

I don't think government employees are entitled to levy taxes.

[YMix]

Good for you.

You didn't actually answer the question.

[noddy]

queue dioscuri and his tribute to ruthless authoritarianism and how we all need it and love it... vomit.

My tributes to ruthless authoritarianism? Oh, hardly!

To be an authoritarian is to believe that people stray from proper obedience and must be forced back into line. I believe nothing of the kind.

There is no straying, no deviation whatsoever. Everyone obeys, at all times and without fail.

well im afraid im far too busy and far too preoccupied with deciphering real world peoples language to really understand what your trying to get at, i need time and effort to decode people and your proving opaque in my short visits here

out with it then, as blunt as you can.

[YMix]

The nanny state in action.

[Endovelico]

The fruits of your labour are tied to your living in a community, and would not exist without it.

I agree. However when I produce income it is based on my providing a good or service for a market rate, all parties are justly compensated. No debts are left over.

What you are asked to pay is the opportunity of providing, with profit, a good or a service to the members of your community. That profit has a social cost to the community and therefore must have an equivalent cost to you, to balance the books.

[Simple Minded]

The nanny state in action.

Bravo Ymix!!!!

there is a lot more truth in that one picture than many will appreciate..... Hopefully there is no salt or transfats in that lunch....

pawns are everywhere....

[Ibrahim]

You don't want to diffuse power. You want "gridlock," which means the maintaining the status quo.

No. Try paying attention. Diffusing power is not in the cards, specially when folk are inventing their own special versions of justice, rights and such, concentrating power centrally.

Gridlock is the only pragmatic means of deferring the inevitable.

No, try using logic. Gridlock perpetuates the status quo by definition. If you want some different system, work towards it. If you don't, you are tacitly accepting the status quo.

You are the one deriding social justice, therefore I infer that you oppose the objective of social justice (on the basis that it is "coercive"). Even if I am wrong this would simply be me misstating your position, not "ad hom." "Ad hom" would be if I said you only held this position because you were fat, or something like that.

Wrong. It is ad hom because you say I want the wealthy and powerful in to be in charge.

You do, because they are presently in charge and you support the status quo via "gridlock." But in any case this is not an "ad hom." I don't think you understand what the term means and are using it incorrectly.

Interesting that the creating the precedence of human lives always involves taking over property. Odd that.

Not odd. The wealthy seek to concentrate more wealth at the expense of the majority. Socialists want to transfer that wealth to the majority at the expense of the wealthy. "Taking over property" is at the heart of both positions. Painting the other side as thieves is par for the course, be it Leninism or Objectivism.

So you agree the objectives are material, not any precedence of human lives.

No. Objectivism/Libertarianism places my property over your life. Social justice will take my property to sustain your life.

So coercion is enshrined as accepted by (nearly) all, as justice was never the point, just a tool to wield their unique form coercion to their unique ends, for which social justice was merely moral cover.

False. Justice is precisely the point, and a system which includes as many people in the political process is less coercive, less exploitative, and therefore more just. Or so goes the theory.

Selective injustice is the point, the theory is just cover.

Incorrect. The point is about which outcome is just. Remember, the English legal and political tradition is adversarial. We are talking about two sides making a case about what represents justice. Some people pick the striking workers, some people pick the factory owner.

You just contradicted yourself. I wonder if you can figure out where?

If you could make the case you would.

And so we have a perfect platform for future peace, happiness, universal brotherhood and kindness. And coercion, because nearly everybody accepts that as a good and righteous thing. As long as they wield it.

You also want coercion, you just want it for smaller groups of people.

Nope. Projection.

Claiming "projection" here is not a coherent. If your position is not as I have described then clearly state it. I guarantee you haven't invented some new breakthrough in human politics that avoids the coercive nature of all human civilization.

Why should I state it? I have all sorts of folk like you and Tinkles ready to enumerate my motives and objectives. If I do state them, it won't be to those who compromise their intellectual integrity to win points on an internet forum.

More likely you don't have a coherent position, and you don't want your tenuous, emotionally-based politics smashed apart with fact and logic. It serves you better to whine about how people aren't correctly representing your views which you are too scared to clearly state for yourself. It requires nothing on your part, just like your false claims that others are compromising their integrity. It only demonstrates weakness.

Modern (i.e. 20th century) conservatism is essentially just a reaction to socialism, and therefore seeks to challenge ideologies like universal democracy, social justice, liberation theology, or any other movement that seeks to redistribute wealth and power more broadly.

Could be. I don't entirely fit in there. But redistribution == coercion, with winners and losers and flawed monkeys implementing it. Must sound like a plan to you, but not to me.

Again, all systems involve coercion. You just want different people to win/lose.

Wrong. Again.

No, I am correct. Great argument, btw.

It is the defense of the wealthy minority to retain their power and privilege.

I couldn't care less about the wealthy minority.

You care enough to defend them.

Projection. I have not defended the wealthy minority.

Yes, you have. "Gridlock" directly benefits the wealthy minority. I will allow that, perhaps, you are not intelligent enough to realize this and therefore didn't know you were supporting and defending the wealthy minority until I told you. But it is still what you are doing.

I have ridiculed the progressive left's sloppy terminology invented and used by their own wealthy minority.

Actually I already corrected you on this false claim. The term was coined by a 19th century Jesuit alarmed by both social inequality and extreme leftist movements growing in Europe at the time.

I can ridicule the wealthy minority as well, but they don't shriek quite as much, nor do they respond to a discussion of terminology with shrieking and ad homs.

Again, you clearly don't understand what "ad homs" means. Or shrieking.

This is, of course, done via coercion.

If so, you want to imitate them. Flawed monkey see, flawed monkey do. Brilliant.

You're not the first person to call me a monkey on this forum, and you're wrong nonetheless. You also believe in coercion, unless you are some kind of anarchist. Please tell me if you are.

I'm not calling you a monkey. I'm calling everyone a flawed monkey, and did so in a post where I actually said you were absolutely correct. But you are quick to assume a personal insult. Oh well. Btw, I was alluding to a theme Torchwood has used from time to time.

You don't follow my joke, which was about another poster who also uses monkeys as a theme, in a different way.

No, this is basic history here.
...
It is a fact. It contradicts your arguments. You can't dispute it, so you what else can you say?

It's basic propaganda. Largely accepted propaganda, I'll give you that. But it's another thread.

Ah, you prefer some revisionist propaganda written by hacks to accepted history do you? Why am I not surprised. Going to cite some Jonah Goldberg for me?

What you mean to say is that social democracy or social justice movements terminate in a Stalinist/Maoist style of communist dictatorship.

No. I mean to say that in a really big, diverse country like the US (not dorky little scandavian countries, or island nations) that there is a ton of leverage in the federal government that will be used to apply coercion.

There is already coercion, so this comment is meaningless. Except of course that you dismiss working examples of alternatives by mere say so. Simply ignoring real-world examples and asserting that you are right anyway is pretty much a white flag.

You clearly don't understand what I'm saying.

Clearly you don't either.

... Well, it exposes your unsubstantiated claim that any form of social democracy would become a "fascist" (by which you really mean communist) state. But in the more specific sense you are right that it doesn't apply to the US because Americans have typically supported the entrenched economic and political elite rather than directly challenge them. Social justice in the US has only amounted in some grudging social reforms (women voting, e.g. bare-minimum equality for blacks and homosexuals), never serious reform of the economic or political structure. The closest the US came was under FDR and never close since.

I didn't say "any form of social democracy would become a "fascist"". I said, as a prediction, that the progressive left, by centralizign power, will pave the way for less "noble minded," business aligned fascists to take control. It was prediciton about the US and its future.

And working examples where this did not happen undermines your prediction. Yet you dismiss them out of hand with not explanation or justification.

And you're an durian if you think I mean communist by fascist. No, business interests will be involved.

If business interests back the repressive state, it would be fascist, if not, communist. Just clarify which you are predicting.

Centralizing power and accepting coercion as legitimate is paving the way.

You already accept coercion.

As for me, Viva gridlock!

This is ideologically consistent. As the American economy spools down, and the country is beset with increasingly sharp divides between extremely wealthy and desperately poor, pressure will mount to reallocate some of that wealth. As you oppose that, a paralyzed government is most beneficial to you. It prevents passing legislation that benefits the poor. The present corecive structure stay in place, and are not replaced with coercive structures who benefit different people.

Again, your imputation of motive is laughable.

Again, you are unwilling or unable to coherently state your actual position then. You hate the concepts of social justice and social democracy, hence your inept attacks on them, therefore I place you in the opposite political "camp." If you honestly and directly state you views then we will be able to clarify this matter. If you're afraid to do so, just say that. It will save time. Just don't do a bunch of painful-to-watch ducking and dodging.

I am unwilling to state them to childish interlocutors like yourself and Tinker who quickly and wrongly ascribe motive and intent (both resorting to the word "hate") because you can't conceive of anyone who doesn't fit into your left/right paradigm.

You clearly fit neatly into the left-right paradigm. All you've done since you started posting here is troll "leftists."

Because I ridicule the left, you assume I am the worst stereotypes of the right.

What stereotypes have I assumed? Everything I said about you is supported by your own claims. The few you've actually been willing to make.

Infantile thinking, full of projection. You can't imagine anyone more nuanced than yourselves.

Is this "ad hom?" Let me know once you read the definition.

Flawed monkeys screwed this up. As the economy spools down, different flawed monkeys will manipulate increasingly large and angry groups of flawed monkeys to let them use coercion to "benefit the poor." More flawed coercive structures will be constructed, and the only guarantee is more coercion.

Again, this is not "guaranteed" except by your say-so. There are plenty of nations in the Western world that are both socialist and in which individuals possess more rights and freedoms than in the US. You can dismiss all the other nations you want, but the fact remains that they beat the US in a number of statistical categories, and the police can't strip-search you for making a U-turn.

You just guaranteed coercion as a fact of life. That philosophy is going to encourage it.

It's not a "philosophy," it is a recognition of a fact of human government.

I just want to keep the flawed monkeys in charge expending their energies on each other. The less they accomplish for our benefit, the less we are harmed.

False. All gridlock does is maintain the status quo, which, since you support gridlock, you must also support. This is very elementary logic, which you dismiss as "laughable" and "projection."

Explained above. You don't get it. Oh well.

No, you don't get it, as explained above. Another great argument, btw.

[Mr. Perfect]

Good for you.

You didn't actually answer the question.

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