Share This Post:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

• Tweet

In 1981 John Hospers, former University of Southern California professor of philosophy and the first Libertarian candidate for U.S. President, penned a brilliant piece that explored the nuances of true justice, social justice, and misfortune, as well as collectivism versus individualism. Hospers highlights the function of justice within a society – which applies exclusively to past actions instead of future possibilities – on an individual level. Alternately, “social justice” focuses on collectivism without accounting for individual traits, such as motivation, skill, or ability, by applying a warped version of “justice” to everyday life in an attempt at “progress.”

“What the proponents of ‘social justice‘ do demand… is that everyone, regardless of effort, ability, or achievement, receive a ‘decent standard of living’ – which in urban America may include not only food, clothing, and shelter, but a telephone, a television set, and convenient means of transportation as ‘necessities of life’,” Hospers writes. “And who shall be required to pay for these things? Those whose income is higher; ‘justice demands’ that those who are ‘more fortunate’ be required to contribute to those who are ‘less fortunate.’” The difference between true justice and social justice is that justice is the receipt of either punishment or compensation based on what a person does, whereas social justice is the receipt of compensation from others based on perceived needs.

Social justice is essentially charity – a charity that focuses on collectivism in lieu of individualism. Quite simply, social justice is anti-justice.

In 2012, a cross-section of participants in think tanks, philanthropic organizations, and environmental, labor, youth, civil rights, and other progressive groups collaborated on a handbook entitled Progressive Thinking: A Synthesis of Progressive Values, Beliefs, and Positions. The message is quite simple: everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does his or her fair share, and everyone plays by the same rules. While there is much I find extremely questionable in this piece – particularly the assertion that we are all accountable for each other’s well-being – there are several good points that I see. Points that self-identified progressives themselves are not subscribing to.

Everyone should have a fair shot in life, this is true. But as Hospers pointed out, often misfortune is the cause of uneven starting points in life and is not the result of a real injustice. In order for injustice to exist, there must be a perpetrator. If life circumstances result in unfortunate living conditions, then it is just that… unfortunate. It is often determined that, through taxes, such misfortunes as a poor school, unemployment, and health issues can be remedied through taxation of wealthier people. This is, in reality, charity – and by definition an actual injustice is done to the taxed party, as they are forced to pay for something they did not contribute to.

Everyone does his or her fair share. I cannot in any way disagree with this. I agree entirely that it is responsible, and necessary, for all members of a society to contribute to the best of their ability. However, ability is not always “equal.” As far as earnings go, what is just? Hospers discusses “equal pay for equal work,” asking questions that seem not to have been asked since the piece’s publication. What constitutes equal work? Equal time spent, regardless of quality of work? Equal effort, regardless of different skill, speed, and results? What is, in all honesty, true justice here? Hospers addresses this by making the comparison to students taking a test. Despite equal effort and equal time, one student receives an A and one student receives a B. The grade is the result of achievement, nothing else. In a work setting, should effort and time be irrelevant, rather actual achievement and contribution to the employer be a determination of pay?

Everyone plays by the same rules. This, my friends, is the area where many self-identified progressives fail.

Recently Buzzfeed shared an article titled 23 Writers With Messages For Straight White Male Publishing. The lead-in reads: “We asked attendees at the annual Association of Writers & Writing Programs conference if they had any messages for the predominantly white publishing industry. Here are their answers.”

^{Source: Isaac Fitzgerald / BuzzFeed}

Women and minorities shared handwritten sign messages for straight white men who happen to be writers. Answers included, “Read less white men,” “Sit down & let us abolish you,” “Take a vacation (a long one),” and “We don’t need you.” These identical signs, aimed at any other demographic, would be considered hate speech.

Hate speech. Why does such a term apply only to certain people? Shouldn’t the element of hate be enough? According to some progressives, some hate is acceptable – and all hate is not equal.

I have very often seen the phrase “Sexism is prejudice plus power.” This is used whenever a woman is being sexist towards men, in order to excuse the behavior as men are perceived to be the “dominant gender.” Typically, a screenshot of the dictionary definition works – for me, at least.

Recent responses on Twitter include: “Define racism and sexism in a sociological context (NOT the dictionary definition, which was written by white men)” and “I don’t fucking trust the dictionary it was written by white men.” Luckily, Oxford English Dictionary lists its employees, and has done so since 1989. OED currently lists 91 female employees in contrast to 61 male employees. Since 1989, OED has employed 255 women and 174 men. In 1989, a Second Edition was released, with amendments and revisions being released in 1993 and 1997.

A female-dominated patriarchy.

The reality is many participants in the ill-informed social justice movement hold themselves to different standards of speech and behavior than they hold others. “Accept people for who they are. They can’t control how they were born. You’re a straight white cis man, you’ll never understand what it’s like to experience hardship.” People are treated in accordance with their physical appearance, for better or worse – and it is often seen as socially acceptable. Collectivism instead of Individualism. In addition to different expectations of behavior, there are also expectations of benefits – Affirmative Action hiring, Women Only grants and scholarships, and the upheaval of a female-dominated dictionary because it dares to say women can be jerks too. In short, there is little justice in social justice.

“It will be apparent by now that the demands of ‘social justice’ are incompatible with those of individual justice; to the extent that the first demand is met, the second must be sacrificed.”
~ John Hospers, 1981

Liz Finnegan is a soulless ginger with no political leanings. Pun enthusiast. Self-proclaimed “World’s Okayest Person.” Retro gaming contributor for The Escapist.

Read more from Liz by flipping through the gallery below.

Skip this Ad

Next

ADVERTISEMENT

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
•