This makes a very good point: Social Justice is an Oxymoron. Excerpt:
Huge swaths of Americans still bow at the altar of social justice. They believe government-forced “charity” will advance us to an utopian paradise where everyone enjoys the same outcome, despite personal effort, upbringing, unique abilities and education.
Truth is, though, social justice is an oxymoron based on the false premise that the cure for injustice is leveling the playing field and redistributing wealth. As former Vice President Joe Biden once said, “You may call it redistribution of wealth – I just call it being fair.”
Karl Marx would be so proud.
Marx hated religion, private property and Judeo-Christian values as much as leftists do today. That’s why you should bolt out of any place of worship that combines Jesus, social justice and the government in the same sentence.
In his book, “The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism,” economist Friedrich Hayek nails what’s really at stake: “The aim of socialism is no less than to affect a complete redesigning of our traditional morals, law and language – and on this basis to stamp out the old order and the supposedly inexorable, unjustifiable conditions that prevent the institution of reason, fulfillment, true freedom and justice.”
Yesteryears’ creepy social justice warriors are now out of the closet and no longer hide their agenda. Instead, they give it a pink boa and parade their intentions to destroy capitalism, silence free speech and scrub Judeo-Christian values from the public square.
They harp about injustice and claim only they can fix it, which is one of the most arrogant, egotistical piles of hogwash you’ll ever hear.
I define “social justice” as the term is used by its advocates as “take someone else’s stuff away and give it to me, because reasons.” In fact, the term is nebulous; it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
In fact, there can be no such thing as “social justice,” Like rights, justice can only apply to individuals. What advocates for “social justice” are calling for is not justice; it is theft.
But I differ with the author of this article, Susan Stamper Brown, in one respect, and that is the lateral arabesque they perform in making this a discussion of “Judeo-Christian values.” While it is true that most modern, Western civilizations are – today – based on a Judeo-Christian ethos in social matters, the issues discussed now are those of economics; a restrictive socialist system as set against an Enlightenment-style, free market system based on strong property rights. The two are not compatible; but no religious arguments are required here. For that matter, they aren’t particularly helpful.
Ms. Brown should stay focused.
