Social Justice and Its Critics

[@anneglendening5278]

The danger with social justice is unlike justice there is no universal standard society has agreed on and that's exactly the intended purpose. It can be manipulated to cater to unethical or even sinister goals.

[@monsterhunter445]

I disagree and I think Hayek was been dense on purpose. We can start with basic necessities that every human soul agrees is needed to live. Water, food and shelter. Basically a roof over that person's head and the nutrition and water to live. That means if a billionaire exists and a starving homeless person exists at the same time something is very wrong.

[@NathanBB2005]

@@monsterhunter445 Don't forget healthcare and education

[@Azraiel213]

Hayak was complety correct and deeply insightful: That billionaires and homeless people exist at the same time is not an indication of injustice. It is merely an indication that some people are unable to take care of themselves, while a few others add greater amounts of value to society than they take out. SocJus activists create harm in the world rather than good precisely because they can't reconcile simple truths with their objectives.

[@depressedlunatic6717]

Will the flaw is that to house and feed everyone we would need to help people who do nothing to contribute to the society take this from an economic and social prespective you as a worker could work everyday to feed your family and grow richer yet someone who doesn't work and doesn't have education gets the same things for free you might call it cruel but the thing is this is how society works you could only reduce poverty so much there will always be poor and rich the 1% have more money then entire countries and the poor will be starving but that's the thing a society works when there is a hierarchy if every had the basic access and talent for education who is going to pick up the trash? If everyone becomes a doctor or an engineer then what happens to the cashier? We live in a world where The best way to make money is war and exploitation and we do nothing about it because it doesn't hurt us "oh boho a kid in Africa is enslaved to make nestle some kitkat bar will time to complain about unimportant things like manspreading"

[@sceva13]

"Let me offer you my definition of social justice: I keep what I earn and you keep what you earn. Do you disagree? Well then tell me how much of what I earn belongs to you - and why?" - Walter Williams

[@JedmcCj-uq5dw]

Sadly many think like you until most the population decides we should help each other instead of compete against each other, we will never end starvation, homelessness, or war. It wont happen until religion is a thing of the past people laugh about and humans are so mixed race everyone is basically the same color. So in 10000 or so years the earth will be a paradise. Sadly I was born the same time as millions of dumb fucks like you.

[@TheCrazyGames360]

@@JedmcCj-uq5dw You obviously don't understand human nature, and live in a fairy tale that will never happen because it's an Utopia. I recommend you to put your feet on the ground and accept sociobiological behavior and the natural hierarchies that all animals (including humans) create. Naturally people are not equal, that is just a religious/spiritual ideology that denies nature.

[@ashutoshchouhan8380]

@Bengali, Existentialist. equality of opportunity in socialistic countries like India-Not a single case. It is constitutional inequality. And if you are saying they looted asia, then they must have looted s.korea, hongkong, singapore but why these countries are prospering without even having natural mineral or other resources in abundance. Do never judge any ideology categorically(by its intention) but by its consequences and results. America and all other OECD countries most of did not even have colonial past and that kind of imperialism still they ended up with greater sense of equality(all kinds of), more per capita income, hospital beds, school, nice environment and india with its belief in socialism is now administratively and politically corrupt, no social cohesion exists (whether caste, religion, language), and per capita economically weak.

[@Tetanoman]

@@ashutoshchouhan8380 United States has colonial holdings. Those places you mentioned were looted and only very prosperous in the late 1990's and early 2000s. India is actually 5th now so im not sure what you are saying. China will pass the United States at some point in the near future. India will as well in a bit more distant future. So what then, both are socialist. Your arguments aren't very compelling.

[@Tetanoman]

All of mine and all of yours since we owe everything we have to the society we belong to. Only those living isolated in the wilds might claim otherwise however I could argue that no place in the modern world is free of some societal influence in which order is pursued to improve human interaction.

[@an.unarmed.civilian]

Indeed. "One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results."

[@unclegoon347]

The best definition of Social Justice I’ve heard is ‘Creating the illusion of a fair system, by creating a fundamentally unfair system’ Sums it up perfectly for me

[@NathanBB2005]

It's unfair how?

[@unclegoon347]

@@NathanBB2005 I wrote out a full example above Basically aiming for ‘demographic balance’, with things like affirmative action, all-women short lists etc, means you end up punishing the wrong people because they share skin colour/gender with others who are deemed (but aren’t necessarily) the beneficiaries of illicit privilege. ‘Sorry, we’ve already got too many people who look like you here - we need to hire someone who looks different, otherwise we might appear discriminatory!’ Ass-backwards thinking

[@NathanBB2005]

@@unclegoon347 Oh I completely agree with you on that kind of social justice but this video is more about economic social justice.

[@unclegoon347]

@@NathanBB2005 fair point.... but I think the principle still applies. People are different. Cultures are different. The idea that demographic A does better or worse than demographic B should be expected.... and as a society we should understand and learn from this, and not cry about the injustice of it all.

[@Azraiel213]

I have a better definition: Social justice is the ideology of taking revenge against the innocent.

[@anitabonghit2758]

The road to hell is often paved with good intentions.

[@7norton4]

"Social Justice" is an Oxymoron.

[@garymorrison4139]

"Economic Freedom" is an oxymoron. Certainly the top 5% pay lip service to economic freedom as an abstraction because they rule a economic system that is designed to constrain political choice by allowing the ownership of property and other means of control to accrue to themselves in the disguise of a self regulating market. I can tell you what is lighting up your screen right now, capital .

[@7norton4]

gary morrison Reading a bit much into a five word comment?

[@johntmekjian]

gary morrison Good, I like having a lit screen, a warm house, and food on my table. Three cheers for capital, without which a factory worker is a man in a field pulling a non-existent lever to no avail.

[@enzosperandio5744]

7norton4 exactly

[@dowskivisionmagicaloracle8593]

Libertarians don't just reject social justice just because it wants government imposition to help the poor but rather because they want it for their specially-selected politically-strategic "victim groups".

[@hristoitchov]

Good video, but it doesn't give the whole picture. It doesn't explain why people think in a certain way, why they believe it's natural and OK to compete with each other for survival, why the majority of wealth is not only in possession of a small percentage of the population, but also used for destructive and divisive purposes, and so on. The guy in the video assumes the majority of people are autonomous human beings, who can think for themselves, who can make rational decisions, who can see the whole picture and who are morally established, but reality is far away from all that. Also, again you're misunderstanding what the role of governing distribution actually means. It doesn't mean stealing from people to give to the poor, but providing a minimum to improve the quality of life for all human beings and to give equal opportunity for the freedom to make choices in life for oneself. The video just reinforces what I say, that most people have been sold to the illusion of hard working into richness, and of wasting their lives away filling someone else's pocket while buying things to escape reality. Taxes only benefit the economy if they're scaled up towards wealthier people, as it allows those with less wealth to prosper and to get more financial freedom, to spend more time on creativity, innovation, self-realization. Even then, as long as we have the Earth divided into countries who compete with one another, and as long as there is no effective birth control, the majority of the Earth population would remain poor and suffering. Few winners, lots of losers. That might have been inevitable in the past, but we have all the tools and knowledge to change it now, yet people insist on maintaining this obsolete world-view and keep creating more problems for themselves, which eventually may lead to the extinction of civilization as we know it.

[@BramClaes]

"There can be no doubt that some minimum of food, shelter, and clothing, sufficient to preserve health and the capacity to work, can be assured to everybody. ... Nor is there any reason why the state should not assist the individual in providing for those common hazards of life against which, because of their uncertainty, few individuals can make adequate provision." Hayek wrote this. Adam Smith made similar statements

[@homewall744]

Well, feudal lords and communists would have agreed, and all would get that minimum. Now we allow free markets and far fewer suffer that minimum. Would you like a life where you just got the minimum? And if you got more, it was taken from you to give to another who was below it?

[@NathanBB2005]

@@homewall744 Well that would be the right thing to do. If your friend was starving and you had tons of food and he took the minumum he needs and you still had the minumum you need would ge be wrong? What was he supposed to do starve so you can have extra food.

[@sclair2854]

While his logic is decent, if you look at the distribution of wealth in the US versus other developed nations there is definitely something awfully unjust looking about it.

[@CharlesWakefield]

Just leave me and individuals like me alone. Life should be this simple. Allow individuals to be free.

[@Karou812]

I am a Leftist Why would you rely on the police to do anything for you? They don't have the obligation to do so

[@nomandates9186]

I am a Leftist The police are a group of armed men. Do you know who isn't armed? The rest of us.

[@nomandates9186]

"if a group of armed men tried to kill you would you tell the police to leave you alone and let the armed men exercise their freedom?" I guess I should have said the group of armed men is the police. And we are telling that group of armed men to let us be free. If we personally all weapons, we wouldn't have to tell them anything.

[@nomandates9186]

But like weisse katz said. A random group of armed men come and attack you, the police aren't going to do anything. Whatever central agency you think will be in charge of wealth redistribution won't care about you. They don't do now, they haven't in the past, they won't in the future.

[@nomandates9186]

That may be their stated purpose. That is not what the actually do, as the shooting death of an 80 year old man in his home, the beating death of a mentally ill homeless man, and the other shooting death of a manic depressive 14 year old will attest too. But if you honestly believe that the police will help you in a time of need then we have no basis for discussion.

[@fubaralakbar6800]

So would I. unfortunately, constant government interference in the economy has drastically limited both job opportunities and the pay they provide.

[@fubaralakbar6800]

That's bullshit. If you only offered your employers $2/hr, no one would work for you. Some of the people you already have might stay, but you would eventually lose them to straight attrition. And with no new people being stupid enough to take that pay when the company down the road pays $20/hr, you'll be doing all the work yourself. You don't need social justice, when you have competition.

[@matthewwaddington2777]

4:22 I'm not sure if that statement holds true. An economy is made-up of a series of transactions. Ensuring people have the means to prosper in this environment? 5:04 Human societies are not a product of human design? Depends who holds the clout in that society, and the structure?

[@nufsaid80]

Money is earned, Not distributed.

[@mr1nyc]

The father has every right to control and distribute his property as he pleases. This is the same as any person being free to exchange their capital or labor. I would argue that these are morally equivalent.

[@urbanpsych0]

i agree! the market is self-regulating for example, a company making crappy products will eventually be beaten by a company making slightly better products.. cyclically until the only think that keeps businesses making money is innovation or lack of competition.

[@fubaralakbar6800]

No...consumers MAINTAIN jobs by buying the business's product/service. The consumer wouldn't be able to buy the product if the company didn't hire anyone to make it. A bit of a chicken/egg situation? Maybe. But consumers do not CREATE jobs. They only allow the company to continue to make money, which they will spend on many other things, including job creation.

[@FabledNarrative]

I brainstorming ideas around. 5:03 I had many ideas based around, Who is to blame for a terrible action. We can blame people, though we feel out of control when the weather creates the same outcome. I am glad you added it. :)

[@LucisFerre1]

Not only is there no specific human agency involved with the "distribution of wealth", there is also no distribution of wealth. Income is earned, not "distributed".

[@solidether6738]

Social Justice is simply takeover of private property on large scale and back to slavery system. What's the difference is between Justice and Social Justice ? The same like betwen a chair and electric chair.

[@NathanBB2005]

Oh so social justice is slavery but a person working pay check to pay check for starvation wages isn't?

[@Alejandro-Te]

Thousands of books on justice theory... I can summarize all in one sentence: "Justice is power exertion". End of the discussion. Now we can switch to talking about power.

[@ambidexter2017]

Well, the proponents of social justice are usually also proponents of a centralized distribution of wealth. Those two ideas are so interconnected there's almost no examples when someone supports one but not the other.

[@ladymacbethofmtensk896]

The social justice ideal is society as a bundle of sticks, a flipping fasces. No wonder Father Coughlin called his pro-Fascist paper Social Justice!

[@DjPyro2010]

I'm pretty sure that's the first time a video mentioned Nebraska without talking about the football team

[@iemgote7249]

Brilliantly covered!

[@lesslee]

What about being born into different social and economic categories that don't necessarily let us choose things that may help us become the next Derek Jetter? He doesn't even touch on this.

[@shepf2]

That's because he's talking about injustice. There's a big difference between saying "people who are born poor have a harder time of it" and saying "the fact that some people are poor is an injustice." The first is an honest assessment of the reality many people live in. The other attempts to take that, feed it through a convoluted social theory, and declare that governments are ordered by justice to deal with poverty in the same way they should deal with murder and rape. It's this second one that the video is taking issue with. FA Hayek actually advocated for a form of economic safety net for the poor and even entertained the idea of a guaranteed minimum income. The distinction is that he didn't believe that either were a matter of justice.

[@TheNonAntiAnarchist]

How else would you determine the extent to which resources should be conserved except by reference to the *supply and demand* of said resources? To say we need "more" technology tells us nothing. What specific technologies should be invested in? Keep in mind that the cost of investing in one tech comes is the price of foregoing investing in another tech, or using the resources (one of which is the human labor involved) in another way altogether. The price system informs these these decisions.

[@alesiaj]

So what you are saying is society should pay black mail to those who lose their jobs so they won't rob from us?

[@Starpilot149]

You seem confused on a few things. Watch the documentary "Guns, Germs, and Steel" it should clear up any misconceptions you have about global poverty.

[@PvblivsAelivs]

It's more a question of whether we, as a society, accept the outcome or take steps to change it. Consider fire departments. They don't exist because we think it is somehow immoral that some buildings catch on fire. They exist because we consider it undesirable and therefore do something about it. Now, I don't particularly care for the term "social justice." But if we, as a society, are able to ensure that no one starves, we should do so. Just as we should not let a house fire keep burning just because no one deliberately started it, we should not let people keep starving just because they were unlucky enough to have their job shipped off to China.

[@puppiesyay]

John Undefined Well the amount of my money that you vote to take away to give to people you designate as "in need" is a slippery slope indeed. Also, unintentional consequences ABOUND (depend classes etc) as well as background inefficiencies and corruption that stem from a bureaucracy. I think the moral of the story isn't that its always wrong for the government to spend money just that whatever the government does is distortional and by definition forceful and against the will of those who are subject to its laws. So it should be minimized as much as possible. Because after all, if people all actually wanted something they wouldn't have to rely on the force of the government to do it, it would just get done by everyone working voluntarily. Just because 51% wants to spend the other 49%s money on a project (no matter the intentions) doesn't mean its ok to do that.

[@PvblivsAelivs]

Rockn Outt It is my experience that the people who complain loudest about the possibility of taxes being used to feed people have already enjoyed great benefits of government spending -- roads to ship their products, police and a court system to discourage theft, and even the support for the currency itself so that customers can buy their goods. Perhaps you would like to start over in another country with absolutely nothing. Find out how good a deal working in a sweatshop really is. The wealthiest people often complain about "takers." But from what I see, they *are* the "takers." They think they should be allowed to take and take and take. And they consider anything that might return any of it to the community that has provided so much for them as a "slippery slope." Maybe they fear that everyone else thinks like they do. They grow fat by making people starve and they might fear finding themselves on the opposite side of that equation. But the whole talk about creating a "dependent class" is a red herring. The people at the bottom are *already( dependent. They are dependent on jobs that aren't there. They don't have land of their own to grow their own crops. They need some source of funding. And it gives the few people who control that funding an inordinate power to cheat people.

[@puppiesyay]

John Undefined "It is my experience that the people who complain loudest about the possibility of taxes being used to feed people have already enjoyed great benefits of government spending. . ." This was very upsetting to read because it is so logically terrible. At its core you are saying that if you first take resources from me, then give me some resources that I did not ask for, and may even be against my will, then you can claim the fruits of my work. I'm sorry, but if you "help" me then you are not able to enslave me or take my property by force (same thing basically) as a result. I could elaborate more but it simply does not warrant any more attention. "The wealthiest people often complain about "takers." But from what I see, they are the "takers." They think they should be allowed to take and take and take" This is another very basic misunderstanding of what a market is. Let me first say that the market I will defend is any voluntary transaction and by *definition* all voluntary transactions are mutually beneficial. I cannot defend many of the rich today who have obtained their wealth via crony capitalism by using the government to 'fuck the people' and their competitors. Or by people in the government who did not create anything and only take from others to gain wealth. With that said, people who become rich in the free market (voluntary transactions) are not taking *anything* at all. Why in fact, with every transaction they are HELPING the other party benefit as well, by DEFINITION (if both people did not benefit the transaction would not occur). And to reference myself above, just because a rich person went to 'government schools' (which are mandatory bar private schools and home schooling) does not mean that YOU can take away his wealth for whatever program you have in mind. "But the whole talk about creating a "dependent class" is a red herring. " This is another non-argument and simply a zombie narrative that falls apart at the first touch. Even though you did not take the time to support this claim in any meaningful way I will argue against it. The classic empirical example is to look at the poverty rate from WWII to today. Then look at 1964, when the "war on poverty" began. You will see poverty dropping before that date, and for a few years after that date. Then it levels off and remains the same until today. It can be argued that because of the VERY perverse incentives created by a welfare state for those people, many of them have become a dependent class. Moreover, (sorry to be rude) but it is disgusting how you talk about the poor. Poor people are not victim cattle to be fed and told "you never had a chance, you can't improve, just relax and allow the new welfare money take care of you". They are part of our communities who need charity, they need, to be empowered, they need to be told that they can achieve. That they need to not accept the fate people like you FEED them but rather, with help from their community, need to work, learn, build, and compete with the comfy, fat-cat upper classes who don't want someone who is hungry for success and willing to work for less coming in and upsetting their comfortable situation. Sorry about the long response.

[@puppiesyay]

John Undefined Also I just realized that your response did not remotely address my points in my first post, try to quote me and respond bit by bit or at least respond directly to my points and not go off on a tangent. I was merely saying that the 'burden of proof' to spend other people's money should be very high.

[@PvblivsAelivs]

Rockn Outt "This was very upsetting to read and is logically extremely weak." I agree. Chopping off the specific examples in the rest of my sentence was upsetting to read and logically weak. The fact is that the people who complain *demand* the services I listed. But, if you insist that this is "against [your] will," find a government more to your liking and go there with absolutely no money. You'll see just exactly what the fruits of your labor get you. But you won't do that. The wealthy don't live on the fruits of their own labor. They grow fat on the labor of others. "This is another very basic misunderstanding of what a market is." It's not a misunderstanding at all. You (or at least the people on whose behalf you advocate) cut off options from people so that they have to take your crooked deal or starve and then call it "voluntary." "With that said, people who become rich in the free market (voluntary transactions) are not taking anything at all. " Except that we are talking about people who start off rich and deny real opportunities to the common people so that they can take the labor of the masses at a tiny fraction of what it is worth. One way to ensure that everyone was fed would be to grant everyone a plot of land to farm (but that they couldn't sell) so that they could live off of the direct fruit of their labors. But you wouldn't like that because no one would work in the sweatshops.It's a transaction that isn't really voluntary. "This is another non-argument and simply a zombie narrative that falls apart at the first touch. " Actually, it points out that *you* gave a non-argument. And now you create a strawman pretending that I advocate telling people they can't improve. The reality is that I don't advocate that at all. Even if people ate by means of a government stipend (jobs not being available to feed everyone) they would still be free to develop new innovations or masterpieces so as to better themselves. In fact, they would be able to own their own intelllectual property, rather than having to take a nominally-voluntary contract that the company that so graciously allows them to eat in the meantime owns their intellectual property even though it was completely unrelated to their job as janitor. "Sorry about the long response." I have no objection to the *length* of your response. The insults and misrepresentations are another matter.

[@TheNonAntiAnarchist]

*at the price. The price system informs and coordinates decisions of how to use resources. It makes it profitable to use resources efficiently, and costly to use them inefficiently.

[@jackmcslay]

You just stated the biggest flaw of the social justice concept. If a person can survive without an income of his/her own, that person will have less incentive to find an income of his/her own. Therefore said person is consuming without producing, increasing demand without increasing supply. And with less supply, costs will go up, and with higher costs, companies will hire less, and with less hiring more people will use government subsides, creating a very dangerous vicious cycle

[@Gobob789]

The fact that a society has no agent for wealth or even opportunity distribution does not prove that we should disregard the suffering of victims of poverty; it proves that we need to establish an agent for the distribution of wealth and/or opportunity in order to fulfill the description of an ethical society. The important point that this video would never even touch on is that the goal of a society, as it should parallel the goal of any individual, is to create the maximum happiness.See above

[@fubaralakbar6800]

They pay their employees what the employees agreed to.

[@monsterhunter445]

If an 8 year old consents to shoot a sex scene for an adult. That wouldn't be called consent. I think this applies to employees there is a lot of power the boss has over you. If your boss ever told you hey I need you to work overtime. You have to say yes you can't be hey boss I have something. You give consent even though you really don't. A lot of people are living pay check to pay check an employer can exploit that vunerability. If you are an ancap how do you rationaliaze these issues with Capatialism. Removing the state won't fix the issues of capitalism.

[@R3tr0v1ru5]

@@monsterhunter445 Completely stupid comparison. And as an employee you can say no to overtime and you can quit your job. People living pay-check to pay-check isn't the employer's problem.

[@NathanBB2005]

@@R3tr0v1ru5 That is exactly why it needs to be the governments' problem

[@Dakota2063]

The problem with this argument is that 1) the public sector does not grow the economy, any new job that you create in the public sector siphons off that much with not material gain for the payer, where as private sector is about having that money circulate as much as possible to generate more material gain. 2) Privatization means that that entity has to compete on an open market for your business in order to survive, which leads to better service. Unlike administrations like the DMV. and more...

[@1426305384950384]

I believe your referring to the bank bailout. If you are then please look at the 7.7 TRILLION dollars of loans (often at 0%) the fed gave to the major banks. The reason those banks were too "too big too fail" was due to the government giving them a massive competitive advantage that acted as a barrier of entry to potential start-ups. You also need to ask why they were willing to make such risky loans? Wasn't this due to the very fact that they were confident the government would "bail them out"?

[@aveyowyns]

Right. In other words, I really don't need to give any thought to what you have to say because they are not your words or ideas nor were you capable of choosing not to believe it.

[@qhack]

So if instead he used the term 'We the People' instead of 'government' would the argument change?

[@redorchestraFTW]

I love these videos. Easy enough for an average Joe to understand, advanced enough for continued thought.

[@NathanBB2005]

It is easy to understand because it is right wing propaganda

[@kalidasa_in]

Another fundamental flaw in the argument in the video is that it assumes that persons make their decisions independently, not taking into account the regular corporate brainwashing, e.g., advertising.

[@1426305384950384]

If a party lies about the terms for the trade, then both parties did not mutually agree to the exchange since one side falsified the terms. As such that side committed fraud, a criminal act. If both parties understand the term for their agreement and they are not hurting additional third parties, then what's the issue? Why should a third party (the government) get involved and dictate to those parties what they can or cannot agree to.

[@sceva13]

Yes, they made significant contributions to myself. This is a great argument for why I should, therefor, invest in my children, friends, grandchildren, students, and employees. You have not, however, presented any sort of argument as to why the fruits of my labor should be forcibly taken from me and given to strangers who may or may not need or deserve it. Society benefits when people work to produce desired things. Often they do this out of self-interest, but society benefits as well.

[@NathanBB2005]

The fruits of your labor should be given to people who may not deserve it because they are human rights

[@aj19bcx]

justice is where each person is entitled to everything they have and nothing they don't. you are entitled to something if you got it by making raw materials which are in excess into something more valuable or if it was willingly transferred to you by the previous owner's free choice.

[@urbanpsych0]

large companies are not monopolies, you can choose not to buy from them. but when large companies buy government favors in the form of subsidies, bailouts and regulation.. that is when monopolies form.

[@aethelyfel7573]

It all started with John Rawls who thought that justice required absolute power to enforce end state patter principles, in any endeavor. In the veil of ignorance who gets to decide who gets to be the moral arbiter of who gets what? Why the academic John Rawls with absolute power of course.

[@mnelisigasa9565]

What response do the libertarians give to the argument that historical injustice (such as slavery, segregation isn't policies and laws discriminating against women) do have an impact on present day wealth distribution and to the these injustices are the cause of inequality, inequality is unjust?

[@kevinferrilo6844]

But a Central Planner of Wealth and Income Distribution is, in a democracy, the Legislative bodies that create laws. There is an enourmous body of literature indemtifying how a relatively small group of influental, powerful and well organized people is able to create favourable condition so that their wealth and power can be fortified / conentrated (e.g. State or Regulatory Capture)

[@jackmcslay]

A school degree won't guarantee that a person will be able to make a living. What guarantees that a person will be able to make a living is having a skill set the market demands. But because of most governments' regulation, people need elementary school in order to get to a college or technical school, inevitably having to study subjects that aren't necessary for their desired jobs, raising education costs.

[@an.unarmed.civilian]

if a company is providing a better product at a better price why shouldn't their competitors go out of business?

[@ariskolios1]

Berthold Brecht once said that it's the rich people that create poverty, but when it comes to see it face to face, their nerves are sensitive and valnurable. So they take up charities.

[@TheKibeer]

Very nice video, thanks. I'm afraid though people hooked on social justice do not care how the social injustice happened they just want to fight it and bend it straight every time it changes.

[@dodec8449]

There is an agent responsible for the distribution of wealth. By protecting property rights, the government is responsible. You can not have wealth without property rights, you can not have property rights without a government. I agree that property rights "work" and are generally a good idea, but that is a different story. Our wealth distribution is NOT a natural "spontaneous order", it is a deliberate decision of the government to protect our property rights in the way they do.

[@ShamanMcLamie]

He never made a case that the playing field was always equal, or that opportunities are not distributed equally. But the world isn't perfect and to fix those inequalities is impossible and costly endeavor. So long as people are free to pursue the opportunities they are offered. Government has only proven to restrict and destroy opportunities and create dependency. 1) If you're implying that we just give everyone a job, what would be the incentive to work, we'd also be spending a ton.....

[@Awbrfg55]

The problem is in the United States the public sector does not hold a candle to the private sector, and the growth and flourishing of the public sector is disdained. Privatization is not a remedy for this. Privatization is about capital gains and lining the pockets of shareholders, and it is inherently exclusive to the rich, wealthy powerful and influential.

[@dowskivisionmagicaloracle8593]

Libertarians don't just reject social justice just because it wants government imposition to help the poor but rather because they want it for their specially-selected politically-strategic "victim groups".

[@unclegoon347]

Spot on. The idea of helping the less well off is not against most peoples principles. The idea of approaching this at demographic level is what many people find abhorrent. ‘Yeah sorry mr Asian- great test scores, and if you had any other skin colour we would accept you into Harvard, but we’ve already got too many people that look like you.... it’s all about equality you see’

[@seraphthrone]

The fundamental flaws of the theory described in the video is that, people have equal enforcement power, which isn't true. It might be true 1000 years ago, but not now. That's why we don't see society overthrown easily now days. The role of the government should then also change to reflect that.

[@nanochase]

Wealth distribution through taxation is a massive fallacy. Taxing one of us affects all of us by limiting the opportunity cost of the individual which reduces competition and market size leading to greater unemployment and poverty. This is why I support the Fair Tax since it spreads the tax burden as thinly as possible with the least managerial overhead for business and government, while transparently showing just how much we pay in taxes, reducing waste and increasing market opportunities .

[@81048107]

I think it depends on what kind of social justice. Minimum wage tends to increase unemployment, and that may bias people towards crime, but I am not aware of any studies that go that far. I do think it harms virtue.

[@Azraiel213]

Minimum wage and other such attacks upon the working class absolutely create crime. If you price workers out of the market and they can't somehow upskill (which is unsurprisingly difficult after the state has robbed you of your job!), the only real choices are crime, welfare, or both.

[@Anonymous247n]

It is this perception of justice that would have to change to improve our world, yes. In my eyes, it is not moral, it is not just.

[@EndTheFedRes]

I think there is a HUGE disconnection on what Hayek believes about wealth distribution. As a Libertarian Hayek probably believes that there should be no wealth distribution as do I. Using force to distribute wealth is not the answer. Some people are generous, some are not, but who are you to force them to do what you believe is right? Our current system is not Capitalism, nor is it a free market (which I believe should have some/very little regulation).

[@SwagDemon]

The only flaw in the argument is that currently the system is flawed. The banks failed due to their own failure and were saved. If our current system prevents banks from going under with public funds. Why not have the same for the public?

[@BearWindAppleyard]

Idk if I'm alone on this one but imo I don't think it's neccesary that there's an agent responible, for there to be justice/unjustice. not objectively of course but acording to general human morality, I would say that a huricane that kills a lot of people is unjust, and should not just be accepted as "it's natural/god's will" if we have the technology to prevent some of the damage. social nature is another subject, where I think the right sollutions might be a bit more complicated issue.

[@xcvsdxvsx]

its imposable to enforce since it would require a means for the elimination of luck.

[@monsterhunter445]

Poverty can be deliberate. Like the racist laws US had preventing home ownership via loans. Banks could deny before laws were made. I can only imagine how much longer it would be when the free market was running.

[@R3tr0v1ru5]

@@monsterhunter445 The free market disincentivises discrimination. The government perpetuates it.

[@olelund6821]

4:11 "There is no single person or group of persons responsible for destributing wealth in a free society. And so we can't accuse any such person of destributing justly or unjustly". Let's take a look at this claim. Here are some points to consider. 1. People usually work in corporations or something similar which are structural and hierarchical institutions of power. 2. People need to work in these institutions because otherwise they will get fired, won't make any money and in worst cases end up in poverty and death. 3. People at the top of corporations are responsible for destributing wealth. So as we can see here we CAN actually accuse some people of destributing unjustly. And these are the ones that are at the top of the hierarchical power structure. Because they are the ones who have the power to destribute justly or unjustly. Now to be fair. In the video it is said that there is no single person or group of persons responsible for destributing wealth in a "free society". But this all depends on how we define a "free society". What is a free society? Is a free society the one where you are free to do and buy what you want as long as you continue to work hard at your job? Or is the true free society a society in which people don't have to work, where money isn't everything and where people can stop working if they want to?

[@Oicurmtoyoy]

+Ole Lund A free society is one in which nobody stops you from doing what you want, so long as your actions aren't infringing on the rights of others. Being able to buy what you wan't isn't a factor, not is how hard you work, or if you have to work at all. In a free society, you can choose how much money is worth to you. Both scenarios you described are free, and if we can get to the second one, great. Most people would agree that it's better, and offers more choice. That doesn't make the first one less free. Though it may include less choice, none of it's restrictions violate any of your rights. Also, if people get fired from a corporation, they can quit and work somewhere else, or even for themselves. If the people at the top distributes wealth poorly, they'll be out-competed by another group that distributes wealth better. Their choices aren't arbitrary, as in the example of the father with three kids; they're a calculated business decision.

[@shepf2]

Corporations are a part of the spontaneous order. They are not some preordained institution, written into the design of society. They are a type of business arrangement that has proven to be useful (others exist, such as sole proprietorships, and others could overtake them). Their position of power depends entirely on how well they do as a business. Even long-standing companies are subject to this, as GM has demonstrated at least twice (if it weren't for Congress, they'd be gone). They also aren't a monolith: there is no organization called "The Corporations" making uniform decisions. They are fragmented, and even compete against each other. And there are a lot of them. You seem to be thinking that the act of paying people for their labor makes one responsible for the distribution of wealth, and that very few people are in that position. That isn't true. Even if you are the head of a big parent corporation, you are not making salary decisions for every employee of every brand you own. Those decisions are being delegated to managers. There are a lot of managers, especially in companies that franchise, all acting individually. If you look at people in the trades or freelancers (ie, people who don't work for a corporation) payment is determined by finding clients who agree to hire them. If I apply your logic to that situation, then everyone who has ever hired a plumber has "determined the distribution of wealth." And that isn't true. All of it is a part of the spontaneous order.

[@Awbrfg55]

The tone is sincere. Humanity's destiny is to bring this hellish earth and human condition into paradise through the capacities and use of our intellect.

[@HexTest]

Free people are not "equal" in results, and those that are "equal" in their results are not free.

[@81048107]

Almost forgot - you're right, there are "plenty of studies" and most of them are lousy - as a professor, it is part of my job to analyze their quality. Please see the Fed report I suggested in my other post.

[@BackupHamsterz]

It's not about justice, it's about potential - you don't kill a murderer because he deserves it, you do it because he's dangerous. You don't regard a hurricane as unjust, but if you could do something about it, you would. The inequality is a sad side product of human error, the same way that people overeat and die of heart disease when drowning in abundance - they unwittingly create a world in which people can have multiple million dollar jumbo jets noone needs, and others can starve to death.

[@sether255]

Wouldn't it be the case that the more wealth one had, the more sway one's decisions had over the overall emergent outcome for everybody else in the economy? Doesn't that mean that a larger share of the "agency" in controlling economic outcomes is concentrated among those with the most wealth?

[@chronosx7]

I'd say No... so long the wealth comes from economic enterprises because _that kind of wealth is dependent_ on a person or institution providing value for others. On the other hand Yes... when that wealth comes as a result from "political enterprises" where private actors basically bribe politicians into passing laws that provide them special benefits. It seems to me that's why pro-market people also advocate for smaller goverment and why anticapitalists say the system is inherently flawed, corrupt and needs to be disposed of altogether if humanity is to move forward.

[@DarrylCross]

Just because one was a terrible idea does not make the other better.

[@jackmcslay]

Actually, there are several economist that refute that free market creates cartels and monopolies, and it's government restrictions that create the conditions for them to be formed in first place. Would a monopolist company or a cartel be producing low quality products at high prices, it would create the perfect opportunity for a new company to enter the market with a better, cheaper product.

[@urbanpsych0]

moreover, just because a kid wants to go to a university doesn't mean he is able to, there are mechanisms that help 'qualified' people to go to school, they are called scholarships. the only time when it depends on the parents income is for financial aid. and maybe school SHOULD be expensive, that would probably help deter people from getting throwaway degrees in a field that there are no jobs for. but if government didn't subsidize the education industry, there WOULD be affordable schools.

[@xcvsdxvsx]

seems inferior to bitcoin or is numero set decentralized and censorship resistant also?

[@alvaroalejandrollanos9139]

The argument is very well explained, except for the point where he stated that no one was responsible of unequal wealth distribution. In fact most permeated economic systems generate incentives for agents to engage in rent seeking behaviors. These agents invest resources into hacking the rule of law for benefits instead of capital investment (the one that really adds economic value), simply because the former has bigger return on investment than the latter. The result of hacking the system with lobbies creates market imperfections that allow these agents to gather market power without engaging in competition. A perfect example is the state underfunding of renewable energies versus the huge benefits given to the oil industry. Naturally, the oil industry is doomed just like coal, and solar energy technology is already good enough for household and vehicle use. If left alone, the market itself would bury oil in a matter of few decades. But big corporations are investing millions to hack the market by using the government as their servant and artificially avoid losing market value. Now imagine these situation in many other markets and economies. In the end, the strength of the rule of law will determine how just a society will be.

[@Knonsense981]

Very powerful groups of elite come from government intervention, not in spite of it. And the point of having a government is primarily to keep other forms of organized violence from dominating (i.e., keeping more problematic forms of government out). It really sucks at about everything else.

[@Stikibits]

If you don't vote, or vote badly, you find it represented in your governments. It is a true representation whether you like it, or not.

[@jdm11060]

Well said. The contrary to your thought process is so hypocritical that its borderline disturbing.

[@aveyowyns]

I don't understand. Should we just agree that people aren't responsible for ANYTHING they do because of the inevitability of being influenced by someone else?

[@kalidasa_in]

What about the idea of justice by equality of opportunity?

[@Syncopator]

Did I hear that right? "Free markets" have no "human agency" so they cannot be unjust? Except that society's choice of faith in a free market to not exploit some individuals to benefit others is an exercise of human agency, and therefore the result can certainly be just or unjust. The choice of capitalism over socialism or anarchy over totalitarianism is one of "human agency" and the results of that choice on equality of opportunity, general well-being, happiness and safety, can be assessed in terms of justice. No human endeavor is without human agency, the claim that "justice" is not an appropriate metric is erroneous.

[@Stikibits]

Excuse me, good fellow. If I'm not mistaken, you removed your three questions/points, so why would you expect someone to post answers to the questions/points you removed? Please, go ahead and repost your effort. I'm more than happy to respond.

[@sceva13]

Look at this from an historical and economic perspective. Consider the maximum and average standard of living for much of human history, and you'll come to find that we are currently far beyond what has usually been the case for most people throughout history. It is true that there are still people who lack necessities, but that number is decreasing, not increasing. Rather that focusing on wealth inequality, look at the standard of living, which is far beyond even what it was 50 years ago.

[@bsabruzzo]

I don't use Google+ myself, but if they continue down the line of combining all of Google's properties (chat, video confrene, KZbin, etc) and innovate how you seperate your friends into "circles", they will be a good competitor. They make money compared to Facebook. We'll see. Everybody thought MySpace was the apex social network until Facebook popped on the scene. And that's the point. You never know and the competition makes things better.

[@Conotrant]

In the extreme case, where you have no safety net, it will obviously increase crime because no one is going to starve to death quietly. I don't know what it looks like for high levels of social justice, but I have a hard time seeing it increase crime. Inefficiency yes, but why crime?

[@KaSousek58]

The two are not mutually exclusive, nor are they contradictions. You are dealing in unecessary absolutes that implies how all the actions take place in the same moment in time.

[@nohopeequalsnofear3242]

My income tax rate is more than warren buffet.... let that sink in....

[@josephgill-lussier3906]

What about the banks printing money not based on gold and deciding to who they lend money... Isn't that some kind of distributor? In the states, the national reserve prints out money and distributes it to «save» certain industries and the «economy» isn't that arbitrary?

[@Gobob789]

Continuation of below comment: We know from psychological research that happiness increases from poverty to middle-income, but not from middle to high. It follows that a mechanism should be in place for moving some wealth and opportunity from the top to the bottom. THIS is being an ethical society.

[@ladymacbethofmtensk896]

Happiness is quite overrated. The best art and music is saturated with the toska.

[@G33KST4R]

It is hard to interpret tone over the internet, but I genuinely hope you! I really want to see Utopian economics come to fruition!

[@adambelnap]

You cannot divorce from prices its function of telling producers what and how much to produce from its corresponding function of distributing income. Suppose I'm a window washer. I can wash the windows of your house or the windows of a skyscrapper. If the price of supplying my labor is the same, why would I or anyone else wash the windows of a skyscrapper? If is precisely because the distribution of incomes are different that ensures both windows get washed.

[@Nawor666]

He calls them "Classical Liberals", which are more commonly known as a subset of Libertarians and often Conservatives, though they tend to be more socially liberal.

[@81048107]

And by the way, the video does not say anything about abortion - how did that come up?????

[@1426305384950384]

I believe you are misunderstanding the very notion of freedom. Voluntary actions are by their very nature "free" decisions. By using force to take away voluntary agreements you are not creating freedom but destroying it. Monopolies are formed through barriers of entry, and the majority of these are created by? Why do you believe finite resources would even be a problem. As the supply decreases for those resources the price increases and people opt for alternate resources instead (renewable ect).

[@jdagilliland]

Perhaps not, but it does address the complaint by non-libertarians that in a free society social justice would not be done. To those who would say that each incremental step towards liberty curtails social justice, the argument in this video should be very powerful.

[@sheriff0017]

On capital accumulation, I'll save you some more time: You're wrong. Capital accumulation is simply the act of accumulating capital. It often takes the form of saving. Getting a CCNA is a form of capital accumulation, if we're talking about human capital. Reinvestment of profits is capital accumulation. Overtime, we have not seen a concentration of capital, but its diffusion, but this is irrelevant. In a market economy, the owners of capital do not control the economy, consumers do.

[@HexTest]

Well, Libertarians are pretty skeptical about the effectiveness of FEMA after Katrina hit. Some argue that the national gaurd could take it's place and see disaster response as a "public good." Others argue that disaster insurance would be a better means of funding response to such situations because the rates would reflect the actual risk of living somewhere disaster prone. Which might mean you would have less cities in hurricane-prone places built below sea level...

[@fothinator]

In my small unimportant opinion, social justice means everyone that can't or don't want to be successful and make it on their own get together and cry about how life sucks, how hard it is to get a job, how it's so UNFAIR. However on the other hand, a true free market no longer exists in America, it has been replaced with corporatism/crony capitalism and a welfare state. The system has been stacked against the common folk.

[@Awbrfg55]

I thank you for this. Thomas Sowell is a fine thinker. However, it's a double edged sword. Where do we find the balance for modification or "change" and maintaining what works? And how can this balance benefit as many people as possible? Even though America is an exception and poverty is not AS BAD as it is in other territories... I still find it a point of concern. Thanks!

[@ladymacbethofmtensk896]

Nobody is smart enough to answer that question in a way that works for everybody. The point that libertarian thinkers make is that there are some things that no genius is capable of solving and that it is probably more helpful to the poor and vulnerable not to even try.

[@135Badger]

A Classical Liberal like myself believes that the state ought to treat all people equally despite of the fact that they are unequal. Social Justice demands that the state ought to treat unequal people unequally in an attempt to make them equal. You don't need to be a philosopher to recognize the immoral implications of such a proposal.

[@LinearCry]

Where does he say that people who support charity want more welfare? Charity is voluntary, welfare is an entitlement funded by taxes. They are two very different things. "Social justice" usually does imply redistribution. If it didn't, it would just be called "justice".

[@BlueBleedStl]

(assuming of course that the exchange does not harm third parties). For that reason right there. Because both sides can always profit at the expense of an un-represented third party in any deal. Usually a community, geographic area, type of people or limited resource / population.