"Social Justice" is an Assault on Justice

[@yafifi181]

I'm currently a college student and I taken multiple courses that used social justice as their underlying topic for the semester. None of what is said in this video is what I was taught. If you google "Social Justice Definition" the first link you click on (aside from wikipedia which is not a credible source) the definition of social justice is "The fair and proper administration of laws conforming to the natural law that all persons, irrespective of ethnic origin, gender, possessions, race, religion, etc., are to be treated equally and without prejudice. SEE ALSO CIVIL RIGHTS". How does anything you just said relate to this definition, which is similar to the one I studied here at school? Social justice should not be confused with socialism people... The idea of social justice is not to "take from the rich and give to the needy" it is a basic principle that no matter what background you come from, you are entitled to certain "unalienable rights" (as quoted by our beloved Declaration of Independence). As described by Maslow's hierarchy of needs, everyone SHOULD have the right to fulfill their physiological needs (food, water, sleep, etc.), safety needs (shelter, resources, protection from violence), belonging needs (family, friends, overall acceptance), and esteem needs (the right to feel comfortable with oneself and to not be put down by others). We are lucky that most of these needs are met for many Americans, however this is not the case for a majority of people in this country. I didn't hear one of these things mentioned in the video, I would love to hear your input Mr. Biddle and anyone else who disagrees with what I have brought to the table.

[@daniels3784]

"...everybody deserves have your wealth by the mere fact that they need it." You're not entitled to someone else's property just because you've concluded that you "need" it. They earned the wealth they have and you need to find your own method of accumulating wealth. Taking from some to give to others is not justice. If someone wants to give to charity that's a different story.

[@diegomorales8616]

Why is the "no fault of their own" argument used exclusively for people in bad situations? Why can't a person who is in a good situation--and who has infringed on no one's individual rights--exist in that good situation also "through no fault of their own"? Because pity is mistakenly used as the standard of morality instead of individual rights. Feeling pity does not give you a right to initiate force. No matter how many people feel pity toward something or someone, they cannot vote away your individual rights and use force against you.

[@helvitisdrasl]

If treating people the way they deserve is justice, then "social justice" is indeed a form of justice. The underlying moral premise is that everybody deserves have your wealth by the mere fact that they need it. So it follows that treating them accordingly is to give them your wealth. And if you don't, it follows that it should be taken from you by force.

[@EricScoles]

Nothing really objective, here, once you get past the unsupported categorical statements.

[@EricScoles]

T. White ... which is basically a way of saying that enforcing justice is always unjust.

[@EricScoles]

T. White So you're referring me to the niche teachings of your party to support your argument?

[@CircmcisionIsChi1dAbus3]

+Eric Scoles unsupported based on what? your speculation? or his dialogue that failed to specify support? He isn't asserting anything.

[@naclnaclnacl]

this guy knows exactly what he's talking about

[@shelterstories]

In capitalism, the big fish eat the little fish. Obviously, you haven't been eaten yet. Your time will come. The Engineers I worked with for years believed as you did, until I was directed to slash their pay to give the FAT CATS at the top who did no work, the Engineer's bonuses. Suddenly, they began to understand what "Social Justice" meant. The Brittish used to believe that "advanced societies" had to obligation to conquer less advanced societies, and civilize them. That was, until the more advanced Germans started bombing them out of existence! Funny how reality has a way of exposing our greed and selfishness.

[@brinham6]

Nicely explained without being strident or hectoring. In other words, rationally. Thank you.

[@helvitisdrasl]

See, that's assuming a morality that recognises a relationship between deserving and earning. Altruism doesn't recognise earning at all. In that view, deserving is causeless. "Social justice" is a form of justice, in the same way that altruism is a form of morality. It's an error, but it follows directly from the (mistaken) premises.

[@stevekalaydjian1408]

JOBW63, there are probably even more ideas around social justice, but the one you posted is a great start. I'm curious about views on social justice in other cultures and countries (particularly those that are not Eurocentric), where privilege, oppression, domination are experienced and viewed differently. There are also focuses for social justice other than money...

[@rogermckay8447]

+Steve Kalaydjian There sure are, but this guy clearly thinks only of money. Not sexism, racism, gay rights, etc.

[@rogermckay8447]

+Steve Kalaydjian There sure are, but this guy clearly thinks only of money. Not sexism, racism, gay rights, etc.

[@alejandroduran4400]

Thank you, Mr. Biddle. Thank you for this lecture and The Objective Standard. For viewers interested in learning more about social justice, I invite you to The Social Justice Syllabus Project As far as I can tell, this is the only site dedicated to providing sources that critique the concept good premises Alex

[@edwinpepela1205]

Social justice as viewed on internal security.Just wondering which system give power to the government to exert a decision without criminal prosecution.Some so called gun control and malicious power of use of mind control.Whether is criminal or not everyone has a right to go through due process.The harsh people and mistreatment is a failure by the government.is so sickening

[@talmagetrujillo3455]

This guy has clearly lived a sheltered life of white male privilege and has no idea that a whole world exists beyond his pretentious little den. The idea that those using the term social justice are unable to define it and that they usually provide a warm fuzzy little definition that does not mean anything drives the point home. In a world with social justice we enjoy the following: right to a fair trial, freedom of expression, freedom from discrimination due to gender, orientation, creed, color, ideology, what have you, freedom of movement and residence, the right to seek and gain asylum from persecution, freedom to worship or not, freedom to participate in governing selves, etc. When the basic rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are denied, stripped or otherwise purged, social justice is destroyed.

[@GregLoutsenko]

this guy is SELFISH!

[@kwfinken]

In terms of economics, this is right on. It misses, however, the social justice attitudes toward free speech, individual rights, traditional morality, etc.

[@freyfaust6218]

Justice is merited punishment or reward based on individual behavior. Collective reward or punishment is not justice, it is guilt or merit by association, or bigotry in application.

[@jowb63]

Great video Craig. I would say, however, that not all advocate of social justice advocate government intervention. There is a strand of libertarian thought that uses social justice to justify a minimal role for government in society. See the bleeding hearts libertarians blog and the book Free Market Fairness by John Tomasi. What do you think of these thinkers? Does your definition of social justice still apply or is something else necessary to analyze these thinkers like another definition.?

[@honeyglazedgammon2318]

"Thomas Sowell- Money of fools" Does a good snippet too.

[@xXdrumfreak23Xx]

I think he makes a lot of good points based in rational thinking, but he also says “they” a lot, generalizing a very large number of people simply because those people all use the term “social justice.” It becomes vague and starts sounding like capitalist propaganda about halfway through, claiming that those who call for social justice are calling for a socialist structure in society, leaving the viewing audience with a skewed perception of many people’s words thanks to his assumptions and generalizations. One idea in pro-capitalist thinking that I tend to agree with is that you have a right to what you earn, but those already in power and those who already have wealth are utilizing said power and wealth in a manner that keeps them at the top and those in poverty at the bottom. To me, keeping the greed of the already wealthy in check is a form of social justice, as I understand the term. By doing so (however it is one does so) we change how those less financially privileged are able to have more equal opportunity to become more wealthy.

[@IMfrederick]

Another clear explanation. Thank you.

[@TheIndividualRights]

It is pro-capitalist thinking what a dumbass

[@FPOAK]

Any overview of an ideological movement is going to involve generalizations. We would be severely limiting ourselves if we had to wait until an idea was held in exactly the same way by 100% of the members of the group before we were able to acknowledge or discuss it. It's useful to be able to identify the essential ideas at the core the movement and the general trends shared by its members, even if there are some exceptions. It's one thing to say that a generalization is wrong because it is inaccurate, but I don't see anything wrong with using broad terms when speaking on a broad subject.

[@lordcris]

Thank you Craig! Great analysis, as always.

[@gorp2647]

Thanks for that well thought out example.

[@davidlewis6728]

while what you are saying was very clearly biased from the start, i cannot find an objective refutation of your conclusion, and must therefore decide to either withhold my judgement, or agree.

[@MiraSmit]

Tell me something. Should wages at least be raised enough to cover inflation? Has minimum wage in the US over the years been raised to cover inflation or has it stayed the same while the living costs for people kept going up. Is it justic that someone can work 60 hours a week and still not earn enoug money to not need welfare programs. Fact is if the minimum wage is a living wage you will not need as much money to go to welfare programs.

[@AnarchistMetalhead]

+Mira Smit no, wages should fit what employee and employer agree on, and there should not be a centrally planned currency imposed. it is just, as they agree to that payment, and it is likely the best that person can get with their skillset. if you ban people from hiring that person in a cost covering way you make that person worse off, unemployed. there should not be welfare

[@MiraSmit]

So if you suck at negotiating your wage you're always screwed and people doing the exact same work could end up being paid different amounts for the exact same work. What this does is give the employers a chance to exploit their employees. And when people don't have their primary means through say welfare youll see an increase in crimes such as theft and more people on the street, we shouldn't want that.

[@AnarchistMetalhead]

Mira Smit yes, people doing the exact same work can get paid different amounts, as long as each employment relationship is consensual there is no problem with that. employers cannot exploit people by paying them an amount they consider worth working for people in high welfare areas and cultures are more likely to steal, which is not surprising when they are already living off others

[@MiraSmit]

It is not alright to pay people doing the exact same work different amounts. Employers will use this to their advantage to pay as little as possible and people who are good negotiating their pay aren't that common. Not to mention youre negotiating with the person who can fire you whenever they feel like it or decide not to hire you if you don't agree to their terms and just fin someone who will work for less. Employers would have too much power. Having a set amount makes sure that all people who have the qualifications for a job will get paid fairly, if someone shows theyre exceptionally good they can always get a raise.... And where do you get those statistics that those people are more likely to steal? People who are even more likely to steal are the ones who get absolutely nothing.

[@daniels3784]

Good stuff, thought you were defending social justice.