With Liberty and Justice For All. Social Justice or Economic Egalitarianism?

We often hear in our society and churches that "social justice" requires some action by the government. Social justice stands as a hallmark principle, if not doctrine, of most Christian denominations. Social justice has been a key assertion in the health care/health insurance debate by advocates of reform generally and the President's positions specifically. I think, however, that the term "social justice" too often is an avatar for"economic egalitarianism" because "social justice" is something that seems unassailable, whereas "economic egalitarianism" has far less appeal.Forcing equalization of economic circumstances is the practice of economic egalitarianism. Economic egalitarianism necessarily requires taking from some and giving to others to equalize their relative positions. Unfortunately, I fear that frequently we succumb to the siren song of social justice only to crash upon the rocks of economic egalitarianism, with the result being the loss of freedom, not justice.If to do "social justice" we must compel a person to involuntarily surrender their money or other property, do we not necessarily have to conclude that they obtained their money or property unjustly and, therefore, must give it to the other? But if I have justly earned what I have, how can it be "social justice" that permits you to compel me to give it up to another? If my faith calls me to acts of charity, and moves me to give my cloak to my brother and help him subsequently provide for himself, I have done social justice. If, however, I use the government to force my neighbor to give up his cloak to another when he does not wish to do so, I do not believe that is social justice. On the contrary, I have engaged in tyranny, not justice.When we freely engage in actions of social justice either individually or in our faith communities, we are truly living out our faith. But we must be extremely careful when we confuse our freedom to so act, with the obligation of our government to do the same coercively. We may indeed desire to re-order societal institutions to accomplish social justice goals, but we should do so sparingly and only under very broad consensus rather than bare majorities. Otherwise, we may find that we have become well-meaning tyrants eroding individual liberties.Our Pledge of Allegiance ends with the phrase, "with Liberty and Justice for all." Perhaps it is simplistic, but I submit that it is a good test nonetheless. If I advocate that the government engage in act of apparent social justice but doing so requires the infringement of your liberty, we do not have liberty and justice for all. The best policy generally would be to resist the temptation to induce our government to act, for once liberty is infringed, it rarely is regained peacefully. So runs the course of history."As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there is a twilight when everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be most aware of change in the air however slight lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness." William O. Douglas, Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court

Replies

Note: this page contains paid content.

Note: this page contains paid content.

Note: this page contains paid content.

Note: this page contains paid content.

Note: this page contains paid content.

Note: this page contains paid content.

Note: this page contains paid content.

Note: this page contains paid content.