IS SOCIAL JUSTICE JUST?
Karl Arnold Belser
19 June 2018
observe that putting an adjective like SOCIAL before the word
JUSTICE limits the meaning of what is JUST. So, what does justice
actually mean? The article in Wikipedia about justice
essentially says that justice is whatever society at large decides it
is. There are many ideas in philosophy depending on how big of a
picture one views.
I think the nations of the world are en economic competition. Therefor I like the following definition for justice from Wikipedia. Utilitarian thinkers including John Stuart Mill said that justice is what has the best consequences. In the case of national competition, the best outcome is survival of the nation. Without survival of the nation none of the social aspects of justice can occur.
For example the US lowered the corporate tax rate to make the US competitive with the other nations of the world. This means that less revenue will come in for social welfare. Hence welfare benefits will have to be cut back because the welfare recipients are essentially free riders.
The big picture question is" Do human rights entitle every person on earth to a part of the world economic wealth even if they do not contribute. I would say that this kind of entitlement is simply unjust, at least for the people that produce the wealth. When the producers lose, everyone will lose, because the producers will stop producing.
The social justice idea is apparently built into our government and educational system.
One example is that the aircraft controllers in the US are selected for diversity not competence. See the article Is The Air Traffic Control Hiring Scandal Evidence of Broader Affirmative Action Failures? Not only do the competent and experienced people not get hired. but the American Public is put at risk of death. Is this policy just?
Another example is the hiring of public employees. Normally California State employees are hired based on a civil service exam. Apparently few minorities did well on this exam. So the state instituted the LEAP program, or the Limited Examination and Appointment Program. The primary purpose of the program stated in the human resources leadership graduation ceremony was Social Justice. I observe that this program guarantees that a better qualified person will not get the job that the LEAP applicant gets. This in my opinion is unjust. Of course society can call anything just it wants to.
I observe that the nation will not survive if it does not reward the best and brightest, because the best and brightest will either stop producing or leave the nation. For example, look at Venezuela today.
I am an investor. Suppose that there are ten thousand companies in a nation. I would invest in the companies that seem to have the best return on investment. I would resent it very much if the government told me that I had to invest in the poorly run companies because of economic justice. I have skin in the game, so I care.
Just like companies, some people have a better potential than do others. As a national strategy I would want to invest in those people to make the nation as competitive as possible. I certainly would not allow unproductive people to immigrate into the US. Bad companies go bankrupt, that is they die. Incapable people cannot just be allowed to die for human rights reasons. The problem that has to be solved is what to do with these unproductive people. We all have skin in the game with regard to population control because if the nation fails because of poor competitivity, then we all loose. The general public does not understand this fact.
As I pointed out in my post POPULATION CONTROL USING SOCIAL CREDIT the Chinese have solved this problem by keeping the unproductive, unintelligent and political dissidents out of the big cities. I realize the the US essentially does the same selection using one's criminal record, which many people think is unjust. The price that the US pays is that of the prison system, which I think is less effective and more expensive than the Chinese Hukou System of social credit..
There are going to be many more unproductive people in the future than there were in the past. So I think that the economic effectiveness of population management will be a deciding factor in the future success and survival of nations. The law of nature is survival of the fittest and it cannot be modified by political correctness..
Last updated June 19, 2018
KARL BELSER HOME PAGE