"Social Justice" vs "The Individual"?

[Fried Egg]

What should be the focus of our government's activity?

I read this interesting article about why the focus of a government's activity should be on the rights of the individual rather than on any particular concept of "social justice".

Indeed, the very injustices that those waging "social justice" attempt to address are only made worse.

Here is an extract:

[Lepton]

I've always had a problem with suggestions that Social Responsibility does not exist.

This article has not changed my mind.

It seems to suggest that racism, sexism, etc do not exist outside of the government. Under a free market, individuals do not have the same rights because other individuals control the granting of these rights - those that hire. I could be missing something, but it seems that the author is trying to say that the individual's rights are being removed by govnerment. I reply that, clumsy though it might be, many individuals would have fewer rights were it not for their government.

[Samadhi]

Lepton:

[Antrax]

Jewry is a pretty funny word. Beyond that, I seem to be in quite an agreement with Samadhi here. I never quite got the whole "government swooping from the heavens trying to forcibly make the world fair by denying people's rights so people can have rights" deal.
Antrax

------------------
"If it comes down to a choice between being unloved and being vulnerable and sensitive and emotional, then you can just keep your love." -Victor Mancini, "Choke"

[Samadhi]

Yes, I would like to have it explained to me how more rights are generated by denying certain rights. I don't see how you can get, say 2 units of rights for every one unit denied or whatever.

Or maybe some person's rights just aren't considered as important in some people's world views?

[Antrax]

The approach is often like a savings account - "lose some rights now and a lot of people will have a lot of cool rights later", but I have a problem with being forced into such a plan. If employers choose to promote only women in the next 5 years, more power to them (I'll open a company for males and make tons of money, but that's something else). But the government shouldn't force such things.
Antrax

------------------
"If it comes down to a choice between being unloved and being vulnerable and sensitive and emotional, then you can just keep your love." -Victor Mancini, "Choke"

[Mikko]

"Social Justice" vs "The Individual" or rights vs obligations is really a question of finding the correct balance. That article refers to one extreme (regarding Hitler and Stalin), but the other extreme is no better. To put it simply, you don't care much for your rights if you don't have food to eat.

[Lepton]

dictionary.com seems to define a right (in this context)as:

Something that is due to a person or governmental body by law, tradition, or nature.

Something, especially humane treatment, claimed to be due to animals by moral principle.

My government has a law stating that visible minorities shouldn't be discriminated against by employers and potential employers. Therefore that is that a right.

Originally posted by Samadhi:

---

You don't have a "right" to be hired somewhere.

---

So if I am the best candidate and I get passed over for a job because of racism, sexism, etc, it is my Right to what you call "Social Justice". Is this racist or sexist of me?

If a Right is what dictionary.com claims it is, then the government does, indeed, appear to award rights. Is it natural or traditional that we should have the right to freedom of speech without being condemned for what we say? Is it natural or traditional that some people are allowed to write down whatever they want on paper and sell it real cheap every morning, without having to worry about the people they insult going to beat them up for it?

I'll admit that I'm using an ugly definition of "right". I'm willing to accept the second one about animals, but then we'd get all tangled up about morals.

[Samadhi]

Lepton: Using dictionary.com to define 'rights' for you is, by your own admission, ugly. You might as well have taken the line below

A just or legal claim or title.
or the first definition

That which is just, morally good, legal, proper, or fitting.
It seems we can agree that pulling this definition out of the www's bunghole is hardly the height of philosophy. Maybe we should call this the fallacy of appeal to lack of authority?

Quote:

My government has a law stating that visible minorities shouldn't be discriminated against by employers and potential employers. Therefore that is that a right.

Wrong. A law does not a right make. (Neither do two wrongs, but I digress). Was it a right to kill jews in Germany during the 30s?

While it's ethnocentric of me I feel it is appropriate to quote a germane passage

Quote:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed....

That is what I am speaking of. The government doesn't give me rights, it secures them. Well, actually its performance on that measure is in steady decline, but that's another matter.

Uh, no offense but after that you only really have questions. I don't really like to argue with questions, as you're really not stating anything.

But I'll answer your questions:
1. Depends on why you think you should get special treatment
2. Inalienable
3. No, I don't beat my wife...I mean....

[Lepton]

I could, if you'd like, find a more widely-recognized dictionary. The definition, however, will not change significantly, if at all. I like the first definition that you returned with...rather disgusted that I didn't see that myself. <insert a disgusted-but-smiling face>

Using the definition I had, German soldiers had The Right to kill Jews during the 30's and early 40's. Morally, it was not Right. The two are definately different ideas: I (personally) don't feel that it is right for any person to have unlimited access to firearms. It is, however, their right as an individual to do just that, provided that they have a reason.

It is not so kosher of me to say this, but I don't believe that humans were given rights at birth. I believe that it is our society that grants rights. Monkeys don't have rights when they are with other monkeys. It's only once they enter humanity's sphere of influence that they earn some basic animal rights. In The Jungle Book, Mowgli is raised by wolves. He does not have to respect human rights with the wolves, nor does he have these rights. He cares merely for survival.

If a man is alone, isolated from society - let's say that he has no friends or family alive, and lives far in the woods - he can kill himself if he wants to - there is no question of Right. On a crowded NYC subway, however, no-one has the right to kill another person, even himself, because it will affect other people. Only in the context of society does a Right become existent.

Admittedly, this is a rather Faithless viewpoint. But in science, we must define our existence in tangible terms. We should do the same with our law and politics. God is The Man, but he's not always there in the courtroom or legislative assembly* to help us out. (by "God" I might mean "Gods" or "Existence", and by "The Man" I might mean "The Woman", "The Men", "The Women", "The Mixed-Gender Greatness", or "Everything")

---
*I'm being ethnocentric too

[This message has been edited by Lepton (edited 06-03-2003 06:50 PM).]

[Samadhi]

Lepton: You're conflating terms. The Right of Freedom of Speech is not like the Right of Way. The right to catch a fish (by having a license or it being the season or whatever) is vastly different thing from the right to be secure in your person and effects. BOTH of these are entirely separate from the notion of rightness (I threw that in there just to show what going by a dictionary can get you).

The right of way and the right to catch fish are not the rights that the article was talking about.

The inalienable rights ARE.

Believe it or not I agree with you on one part. We're educated apes. We all decided that we have certain inalienable rights. And that exactly proves my point. The government doesn't give us these rights, WE DO! We only create government to PROTECT and SECURE our rights!

[Lepton]

Ach, I missed a few words in that man-suicide rant. Editing that paragraph.

[Lepton]

Individuals of a visible minority have an inalienable right to be treated equally in the process of application for employment. Individuals not of a visible minority have an inalienable right to be treated equally in the process of application for employment. My government has the responsibility to protect and secure this right. It fails on both counts, not just one.

[Fried Egg]

The point is, should our government be willing to suspend individual rights in the name of "social justice"? Is it justifiable to suspend individual liberty in order to attain a morally superior society?

Personally, I believe that our government's should be individual oriented (as opposed to socially oriented). I happen to believe that society. as a whole, will be better off for it, but that is not the justification. It is justified by the premise (if you choose to adopt it) that the individual is more important than social entity.

[extropalopakettle]

[Mikko]

[Fried Egg]

Extro

Thanks for the C.S. Lewis quote...I've not heard it before.

Mikko

[casinopete]

[Fried Egg]

CasinoPete

[casinopete]

If you cannot get a job, you will have no money. If you have no money, you cannot buy food, shelter, or Rubik's Cubes. In demanding that a government secure the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, you demand that the government make it possible to get a job. Is the connection really that unclear?

The only alternative to ensuring people can earn the means to live is to just hand it over... and strangely, I have a feeling you would not be a supporter of the dole.

[Samadhi]

[casinopete]

I am stunned, Samadhi. At no point did I claim that a possibility creates a right. I didn't even begin to hint such a thing. Nor did I even claim that rights must be possibilities (though I might, depending on the definition of "rights").

Instead, what I claimed was that a government that guarantees the security of a right, must also guarantee that it be possible to fulfill that right.

To correct your example: If the government claimed it was an inalienable right to be able to learn astrophysics, and that it was going to secure that right, it must also ensure that the means of my learning physics must be available. Otherwise, I will not be able to learn astrophysics, and thus, my right was not secured.

[casinopete]

That's the basis for every law our government makes (ideally). The Declaration says nothing about it being illegal for someone to cut off my feet. The government decided that it would be harder for me to pursue happiness without feet, so, to secure that right for me, it outlaws maiming.

[extropalopakettle]

Regarding the right to a job, I think we have to be clear what we're talking about.

I believe people have a right to make a living by providing their services or producing and selling products or buying and selling at a profit, etc. In that sense, they have a right to a job. I think they have the right to a job if someone wants to employ them. But I don't think they have the right to a job in the sense of a guarantee or entitlement.

[casinopete]

I am using "job" loosely, to mean something more along the lines of "making a living."

One thing to note about what I am saying is that I don't mean it to apply to the individual case. A man can find the means to live even if denied a job. But, in the case of say, twenty thousand people in a ghetto community, if none of the employers will hire them, they cannot all find other means of making a living.

[Samadhi]

Casinopete:

[Samadhi]

CP:

[casinopete]

Originally posted by Samadhi:

---

Furthermore, you still need to shift your paradigm. THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT DECLARE INALIENABLE RIGHTS. THE PEOPLE DO. The government does not mete out rights. Got it?

---

"THE PEOPLE" DECLARED THAT IT WAS THE GOVERNMENT'S JOB TO PROTECT CERTAIN INALIENABLE RIGHTS. THIS IS HOW THE GOVERNMENT CHOOSES TO DO SO. You're the one who quoted the bloody Declaration, perhaps you need to understand that governments have popular support, and if you're going to rely on "the people say" as your argument, you should realize that "social justice" is clearly what "the people" want.

Originally posted by Samadhi:

---

Nonsense. This is the crap logic that allows subsidies in "job poor" areas. Move to where there are jobs!

---

The same answer applies to all the discontented anarchists. Perhaps you should just move the hell out of the country!

Oh wait, actually it applies to the anarchists, but not to truly poor communities, since they can't afford to move.

[extropalopakettle]

[casinopete]

Alright. I was actually going to stop posting rationally in response to you, Samadhi, since you seem to be doing much the same for me. But I will take one last crack at clarifying what I'm saying.

[Samadhi]

[Samadhi]

Extro: Yeah, that's a whole other rant.

[casinopete]

Samadhi:

ahh, I see. Using the wrong word once clearly removes any need to read the rest of what I've said in ten posts.

Clearly there is no value in continuing to discuss this. You fail to answer anything I say, instead answering statements I do not make. And now you are quibbling about what was effectively a typo whose meaning was more than clear from the paragraphs around it. I hope you find a nice anarchist state full of justice-minded people when you take your own advice and get the fuck out this country with which you are so dissatisfied.

[Samadhi]

Hey CP: Fuck you.

[Mackay]

Hee hee... he makes a point.

[Lepton]

Mackay:

Originally posted by Mackay:

---

Hee hee... he makes a point.

---

No he doesn't. blah blah blah fword blah blah angry stuff blah CAPITALISED STUFF!!! blah blah closing statement.

[nepenthe]

Someone do me a B.I.G. favor and distinguish a collection of individual rights from a melange of societal interests. It all begins with clarifications of definitions. One can only hope it does not end in a casuistry of semantic juxtapositions.

[Fried Egg]

Casinopete

If it states in the constitution that we have a right to life, liberty and the pursuite of happiness, it means that no one has the right to deny us these things. It does not mean that anyone is obliged to provide us with those things.

By safeguarding or securing our rights, they are ensuring that no one can deny us the freedom go go out and make a living. We have to do these things ourselves, but having these rights means that no one can stop us doing those things (unless, of course, we are attemtping to deny these rights to others).

[casinopete]

Originally posted by Fried Egg:

---

If it states in the constitution that we have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness

---

Actually, it states that in the Declaration of Independence. In the Constitution (the government devised by the framers of the Declaration (so I think we can assume they knew what they meant)), it states its goals thusly:

Originally posted by the US Constitution (formatting and emphasis mine):

---

1) Form a more perfect Union
2) Establish Justice
3) Insure domestic Tranquility
4) Provide for the common defence
5) Promote the general Welfare
6) Secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity

---

But I suppose that's irrelevant?

Originally posted by Fried Egg:

---

By safeguarding or securing our rights, they are ensuring that no one can deny us the freedom to go out and make a living. It does not mean that anyone is obliged to provide us with those things.

---

I think in extreme situations, the borderline between those two can become rather narrow.

Let's look at a rather farfetched example. Suppose Bill Gates just don't like you, and has you followed everywhere, and everytime you try to buy any food of any kind, he buys the restaurant or store you visit, and will not sell to you (this includes not letting you buy property to grow on, or seeds to plant, and doing the same thing with gasoline and travel accomodations of all sorts, so you cannot flee his wrath). He has vast resources. You do not. You will not be able to get any food. You will starve. You will die. He will have killed you. But according to your position, that should be o.k., because he should not be forced to sell to you. As I said, farfetched.

The funny thing about this example, though, is that it is only farfetched on the surface. Bill Gates would never/could never do this to you, at the least it would be harassment. But if your entire community decided to help him destroy you, they could do it. And if a larger, wealthier community, that already owned all the stores, restaurants, land, and Mobil stations decided to do it to a smaller, poorer community, they could do it too. That's the point. When a powerful group discriminates in this way, failing to provide becomes equivalent to denying.

And how can government answer? How can they prevent this denial of rights? They really have two options; they can buy food from the powerful group to sell to the weaker, or they can simply cut the middleman and require them to sell without bias.

That's how Social Justice interacts with Individual Rights. No one person should be forced to sell to/hire another individual, but when there are large communities of people behaving the same way, denial of Rights becomes possible, and the government must stop it.

[Fried Egg]

CasinoPete

Your example of Bill Gates stalking me is very funny by the way...

But, as you described it, he is not merely "not selling to me". He is actively behaving in such away that denies my the ability to provide those things for myself.

As for things like equal rights employment quotas, they ultimately have counterproductive effects. If a company has to fulfil quotas when employing people, that almost innevitably means that a particular proportion of your employees will be not as effective as they would have been (because you had to turn down more experienced/qualified people). This affects the company's ability to be profitable and deliver it's service/product to the consumer.

Yes, descrimination on the grounds of race may be wrong, but you can't fix it in this way. The effects are just counterproductive.