It warmed my heart to see this website – the battle is always the more difficult for being a lonely one.

For those interested in how AOTA defines social justice you can find it here: http://www.aota.org/consumers/ethics/39880.aspx.

AOTA’s Ethics Commission says that its conception of social justice is an inclusive one, that it can even include libertarian conceptions of justice and they deny any political motivation whatsoever. They only seek to promote God’s Goodness on earth and they, as good Jedis, work as one with all the forces of light in the universe. It is only I and those who oppose social justice who are being political. According to one of the members of the Ethics Commission, their conception of social justice which is so inclusive that even libertarians can be for it, is based on a right to needed health care. This is what this member said about the word distribution in the definition: “Distribution in this context means that everyone has the opportunity to receive medical care. And that people have a right to needed health care to maintain their normal functioning.” (See statement by Barbara Hemphill here: http://otconnections.aota.org/forums/p/9397/65099.aspx)

Now would you say that that sounds inclusive of libertarian views or that somebody does not understand what libertarian views are? I think it’s latter but that’s probably just because I am being political.

To YogSothoth: I have addressed your precise concern in my article “Romantic Justice.” (http://uscotindoctrination.com/mynewscmt.php?beid=16&b4pid=1.)

As for a new name for social justice, I’ve always been fond of “neo-communism,” but I would settle for “I Want the Stuff of Anybody With More Stuff Justice”

Sincerely,

Alex Duran

The classic case is lawyers – once anyone could offer their services to help someone in court. These days someone like Abe Lincoln would die a railroad construction worker – forbidden to represent people.

As Milton Friedman showed (many decades ago) that even medical licensing is not really for the benefit of those in need of medical services – it is for the financial benefit of those who provide medical services.

All this is bad enough – but it is not enough for the collectivists.

Why just rip people off financially when you can also spread your ideological agenda?

So such things as the requirement to spread “Social Justice” is pushed.

Soon one will not even be allowed to be elected to public office without such committments.

Harold Laski suggested this 60 years ago – elections would continue, and people could even vote for different candidates AS LONG AS THEY ALL ACCEPTED……

As for “Social Justice” itself ……

The idea that income and wealth are (rightfully) the property of the collective and are to be “distibuted” in line with some political rule, is incompatible (totally incompatible) with traditional concepts of justice (as in the Common Law) as to-each-their-own.

Such writers as Hayek, Oakeshott and Antony Flew have pointed this out.

Of course “social justice” is incompatible with the principles of the Constitution of the United States, as these are the principles of Civil Society – which is what collectivist “social justice” is against.

Bottom line?

Do not accept the principle of licensing.

It is not just a financial rip off any more – it is now much worse than that.

The reason for this is a fundamental error in statist/collectivist thinking—the belief that having intentions toward a laudable end is the same as achieving that end.

Conversely, the statist cannot comprehend any objection to the state as the agent for delivering any particular good, so opposition to the program must be mean-spirited opposition to the desired objective.

This is because the state, obviously, is the only entity which can achieve any social good, according to the statist worldview. Therefore, if you oppose the state, you oppose the good.

Unless you understand this mentality, statist reactions are incomprehensible in such cases as opposition to state run health care or state run education.

The classic statist responses to anyone who objects to these and other programs is “Oh, you don’t want poor people to have health care.” or “So, you don’t believe all children should receive an education, huh?”

The next time you have the time and energy to waste discussing anything with a member of the collective, notice the enormous blind spot they have towards any possible good being achieved without state intervention.

When you’re a one-trick pony, that’s all you have.

As a law, it’ll be up for a vagueness challenge if applied.

As a “code”, simply define social justice as the libertarian principles and say you’re avocating it.

They live by defining terms how they want; fight back the same way.

This has led to a current view that in most, if not all, social orders, Justice, as a concept, consists of the performance of Obligations. In turn, the “Ethical” in each social order are those commonly acceptable means selected and employed (and the motivations for selection) for the performance of Obligations. Thus do Ethics among social orders vary as well.

Then, encountering Hayek’s question, a possible answer seemed on offer. If – Justice is the performance of Obligations, then “Social” Justice must imply the performance of those human Obligations through socially organized facilities extent within the Social Organization, which might include religious establishments, civic organizations, and even the mechanisms of governments. Thus many individual obligations may be subsumed as group obligations for performance.

Of course, any word, like Justice, can be used for any descriptive convenience, but the conceptual intent requires a clear understanding. To use the term “ Justice” to describe the results of material transactions, such as “Distribution,” or “Participation,” without consideration of the Obligations involved in the transactions, and the Ethics involved in their performance, will not advance understanding, no matter how elevated the dialogue.

If I were a Yank, I’d be far more worried about the establishment of “social justice” than whether my kid’s teacher said “God”.

My rule of thumb is to replace “social” with “anti-social”.

Thus social justice is actually injustice; the social wage is money you get for NOT working; a social contract is not a contract at all since it only binds one side; and we all know what we think about social workers.

It’s a good rule.

This is what makes fighting it all so difficult.