Do you support the idea of "social justice"?

Economics Political Theory
1

Economics is a positive science, not a normative one. It doesn’t tell what our values should or should not be, but merely what the cost and the tradeoff of anything we do. It asks why things are the way they are - not what they should be like.

So obviously, when an honest economist ever opposed a particular plan intended for social welfare, it was only because the said plan would hurt the very interests of the values for which that plan was set up. Economists opposed New York rent control, only because it deprived people of housing, which was precisely what this policy meant to avoid. Not because there are economic ideas that are based on allowing people to be homeless who can’t afford apartments.

So if anybody goes into the territory of suggesting which values are right and which are not, it’s politics and not economics.

There are people who have advocated that the state should have exhaustive functions, and that the state does not have and should not have obligations to provide programs for social provisions like education. These ideas have basis in politics. Obviously, an economist can point out the costs and inefficiencies of public education, but if a person has the idea that children don’t have any fundamental right to be educated by the state, he has no need to see the economist’s facts, because the economist’s facts are only useful for seeing whether the state can serve children better through private or public education, not for seeing whether the state has any obligation to do so.

So anyway - while a lot of us may support free market and government non-intervention in commercial activities for economic reasons (for judging costs and benefits to society), the political position of such people still may be inclined towards social justice. They still might choose welfare programs, knowing full well that it will involve a cost for the rest of society, and that the benefits for the rest of society will not be greater than those costs.

So do you support social justice? Do you feel the government should help and uplift the poor, and create programs for social development? Or do you go by the doctrine of natural human rights - which says that people have the right to pursue opportunities for their wellbeing, but not the right to be given those opportunities by the state?

To be honest, I can’t give a specific answer. I know I wouldn’t like children to starve to death, but I know wouldn’t like government programs that still largely don’t stop that from happening either.

2

My thoughts to your hypothetical proposition are thus:

False dilemma coupled with Nirvana fallacy. The most starvation heavy countries in man’s history have been it’s most totalitarian. Communist China, the Soviet Union, a great deal of African countries.. what’s more, such programs tend to hurt those who they are intended to help. Minimum wage laws artificially reduce the supply of labour, creating unemployment and making things worse for both employees and employers. Rent control does the same to the supply of housing, the very same thing many “social justice” advocates claim as a fundamental human right.

Also, look at what government intervention has done in the health sector. Patents and intellectual property laws artifically reduce the supply of medicine, raising costs and benefitting only politically connected pharmaceutical agencies at the expense of everyone else. Also, the property rights of less well off people are thrown out the window if a politically connected developer holds enough sway, much as the farmers of Europe were forced off their land at the behest of industrial barons and property rights of those who were affected by smog were similarily given no heed.

If you want “social justice”, if you want a society with less entrenched aristocracy, look at a free market. Even the biggest free market company can be outdone by the entrance of competition. The solution, in my view, is to remove people from the myths that government schooling and media propaganda have drilled into their heads, especially about economics and history, and especially about economic history. Teach them that these “compasssionate” programs actually hurt the poor, and that free markets will lead to a better life for them.

3

I don’t want children starving to death either. To have them not starve to death, to me, is an ends. From the theory and history I’ve learned, I’d have to say that the free market and a free society are the best at shrinking/alleviating this problem.

The cost to cure all illness, disease, and death is unimaginable, but a goal we try to attain. The same goes for preventing all injustices. The same goes for preventing starvation. Like I said, so far the best system for fixing such problems at the lowest cost to society (and to the individual, in most cases) is through the free market in a free society.

4

That would actually be axiology, and most likely the sub-branch of axiology known as ethics.

Yes. Less regulation and lower taxes across the board are how we can achieve social justice.

Maybe you should consider the fact that egoism, utilitarianism, and natural law all go hand-in-hand.

The main problem of wealth-redistributionists is that they do not understand how wealth is created. Wealth in a given area is created when the resource base of that area is expanded. More resources means that more goods can be produced, thus increasing access of everyone to these goods. Resources are defined as natural resources (e.g. oil, coal, farmland, forests, lakes, rivers, fish, game, etc.), labor resources (e.g. workers), capital resources (e.g. machinery, factories), and technological resources (e.g. computer technologies). The best way to increase this pool of resources is through capitalism. Capitalism promotes the preservation of as well as the exploration for more natural resources; capitalism induces people to expand labor resources by working; and capitalism creates incentives for people to save and invest, which increases capital accumulation and technological advancement since investment money always goes toward these two goals.

By taxing and redistributing wealth, you naturally reduce the free market incentives to work, save, and invest. By regulating land use and taxing, you also make it harder to preserve natural resources. Thus, redistributionism fails since it actually reduces access of the poor to new goods and services, thereby preventing the poverty level from falling.

5

That’s social injustice. They have to get the aid from somewhere.

The state cannot give an opportunity without taking an opportunity from someone else.

Yes, but the state is incapable of providing it.

6

Freedom to homestead unowned resources and exchange them = “social justice” afaic.

7

@ Sanjay

I strongly recommend that you read this, especially part 8. It goes into these types of arguments in depth. I think you would enjoy it.

8

I support the idea of justice.