Social Justice and Its Critics

Find LearnLiberty on Facebook: on. X9qijG
Follow Professor Zwolinski on Twitter! bit.ly/VHMELt
For many, the concept of social justice means equalizing wealth or opportunities for people. Many classical liberals and libertarians reject the idea of government-directed social justice. Some reject it because they think it is impractical or even immoral. Others reject it because they believe the idea is conceptually confused. Prof. Matt Zwolinski explains that the primary problem in the social justice concept is that free societies lack a central distributor to ensure wealth, jobs, opportunities, resources, or other goods are distributed "equally" or "fairly." Libertarians and classical liberals find that the only meaningful concept of social justice is one focused on the legal and economic rules of societies. Many think this focus is incompatible with the political left's concept of social justice. Stay tuned to the next LearnLiberty video by Prof. Zwolinski to find out why he disagrees.
Find LearnLiberty on...
Twitter: bit.ly/RBl3Wv
Facebook: on. X9qijG
Our Website: bit.ly/RBl3FH
Learn More!
Matt Zwolinkski's response to common libertarian critiques of social justice: bit.ly/WGQAoK
A basic outline of the Robert Nozick/John Rawls debate on social justice: bit.ly/WGQfCr
An essay on the meaning of "social justice", including Hayek's definition and dismissal of it: bit.ly/WGQfCr
America Magazine interview with an advocate of the Liberation Theology brand of social justice: bit.ly/TGUi10
F. A. Hayek argues that the term "social justice" has no real meaning: bit.ly/Rz5Rv0
A brief overview of how social justice fits into Noam Chomsky's "libertarian-socialism": bit.ly/YKXheI

[@trick29420]

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

[@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.

[@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"

[@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.

[@iemgote7249]

Brilliantly covered!

[@ravindertalwar553]

Thanks for the updates

[@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.

[@nufsaid80]

Money is earned, Not distributed.

[@SuperSnowman111]

Thank you for clarifying.

[@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. :)

[@fubaralakbar6800]

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

[@DjPyro2010]

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

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@jdm11060]

Wow... breathtaking argument.

[@nightpotato]

Very interesting perspective

[@NathanBB2005]

Yes and a very cruel one

[@Awbrfg55]

Will do that.

[@aj19bcx]

just a suggestion, it would be cool to see a reading of the distributive justice portion of anarchy state and utopia. there are lots of videos on the tale of the slave but don't seem to be any on the distributive justice section

[@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".

[@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.

[@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.

[@jdm11060]

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

[@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.

[@LetsGoOnASafari]

GENIUS!! You sir, just made complete sense.

[@NathanBB2005]

It's right wing propaganda just like Prager U

[@maggot1111666]

This is such a good video.

[@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

[@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)

[@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.

[@MrDanielfff777]

Where is the next video lol

[@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!

[@81048107]

Bravo!

[@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.

[@novazee]

I may or may not agree with the ideologies. But I love the videos.

[@kalidasa_in]

What about the idea of justice by equality of opportunity?

[@xcvsdxvsx]

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

[@SuperbStupidity]

There is.

[@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.

[@esca8652]

Sound is really weird on this one.

[@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.

[@dsjj251]

yes

[@dustyrhoads1]

Another great video! Wish more people would open their eyes to "Learn Liberty".

[@NathanBB2005]

It is right wing propaganda just like Prager U

[@dustyrhoads1]

@@NathanBB2005 Ok. I'll humor you. I understand thinking at an individual level is very difficult for you. Keep watching Learn Liberty and maybe one day you'll be able to think for yourself and make your own decisions...and Bernie Sanders doesn't like you anyway.

[@NathanBB2005]

@@dustyrhoads1 Sure insult me for disagreeing with you. It's funny how you say I need to think for myself when you are literally telling me to watch propaganda and telling people to open their eyes to it. Propaganda tells you how to think so it's ironic you would say that. Maybe one day you will learn to think for yourself and stop letting learn liberty think for you. Also Trump doesn't like you anyway hahaha I'm so funny 🙁

[@dustyrhoads1]

@@NathanBB2005 And you got exactly what you wanted. Spout a little BS, get a dopamine hit from a response, fire one back and voilà! Mission accomplished. You don't need to thank me.

[@NathanBB2005]

@@dustyrhoads1 Sure blame me for what you wanted. All I ssid was that it was propaganda. You got all triggered and started reversing the situation. Go ahead keep making me laugh. 😆

[@LinearCry]

please define or give examples of "equality of opportunity".

[@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.

[@Awbrfg55]

EXACTLY!

[@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!

[@TipoQueTocaelPiano]

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.

[@regelemihai]

The government issues patents?! Are those part of the intellectual property laws?

[@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.

[@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?

[@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.

[@G33KST4R]

So you design a market system

[@Girbub]

Is it me or can I hear one of the GLA themes in this video?

[@devpebkac3854]

glad I'm not the only one

[@wildtexan2096]

all the links for your sources are broken

[@wildtexan2096]

+Kyle Hall awesome! I'm glad they are working now :)

[@healingfear]

We might not call bad weather injustice but I would presume most building codes require homes have a roof.

[@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.

[@trick29420]

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

[@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.

[@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.

[@TheYamsinacan]

I like where this is going.

[@nohopeequalsnofear3242]

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

[@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.

[@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

[@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.

[@81048107]

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

[@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.

[@DarrylCross]

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

[@LucisFerre1]

What has that to do with the price of rice in China?

[@Worldslargestipod]

It's a shame he never mentioned anthony de jasay.

[@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?

[@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

[@xcvsdxvsx]

if you were using pencil and paper would you simply be issuing bills of credit in your own name and using that as money?

[@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.

[@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"?

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@IlayYoeli]

Brilliant brilliant brilliant!. Thank you

[@LearnLiberty]

+Ilay Yoeli Thank you! Are there any other topics or issues you would like to see us cover? --The Learn Liberty team

[@dustinallen4142]

+Learn Liberty Can you do a video assessment on Anarcho-communism and if it could work or be voluntary?

[@PoliticalEconomy101]

Yes, you can do some videos on why social justice countries out perform libertarians ones on every measure of human well-being and happiness

[@dowskivisionmagicaloracle8593]

+Learn Liberty 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".

[@NathanBB2005]

@@LearnLiberty Hi wannabe Prager U

[@urbanpsych0]

like GE?

[@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.

[@HexTest]

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

[@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...

[@LinearCry]

Is that a reply to my question? No one is talking about the government permitting robbery.

[@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...

[@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.

[@qhack]

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

[@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.

[@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?

[@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.

[@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.

[@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?

[@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.

[@Brockhad]

Well, I suppose we think of social justice as being paid based on the merit of your work. Baseball players can't claim supply and demand dictates their wages because the strawberry picker could say his labor feeds millions more and therefore he should be paid comparatively much more than the baseball player. It's understanding the employer - employee that will show us why it's so unjust...Why don't we all have personal managers making contracts for us?

[@pochopaz7381]

Actually I could get around that idea!

[@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.....

[@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".

[@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