Total Posts:21|Showing Posts:1-21
Jump to topic:

Social Justice v. Freedom

000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2011 10:22:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Hayek stated:
"There can be no test by which we can discover what is 'socially unjust' because there is no subject by which such an injustice can be committed, and there are no rules of individual conduct the observance of which in the market order would secure to the individuals and groups the position which as such (as distinguished from the procedure by which it is determined) would appear just to us. [Social justice] does not belong to the category of error but to that of nonsense, like the term `a moral stone'."

The same case could be made for "Natural Rights." If you deny any form of universal moral declaration, then you transitively reject the notions upon which rightist ideologies are founded. To the same token, if you accept natural rights, which is of itself an objective decree, you cannot then rebuke social justice as having no means upon which to be measured or "rules of individual conduct."

We must hold justice, fairness, and equal opportunity to the same height that we hold freedom, but as you know, they cannot all coexist entirely as justice is a direct contradiction of freedom. You cannot simply ignore one for the other like the Anarchist or extreme Conservative does, or the Communist and Socialist do. There must be a balance of virtues.

That said, if you have a PDA or a court or ANYTHING that is to defend freedom and punish those that infringe upon the rights of others, there must also be a justice system that is to defend fairness and punish those that actively destroy it. To tie the two together, it could be said that fairness is a right.

What is there to disagree with?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2011 10:24:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The whole concept of rights would work much better if instead of inherently given, they would be earned. In a sense that everybody would start off with X amount of rights and earn them as they have good behaviour. If they have bad behaviour, they lose rights.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2011 10:31:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
so you pit socialistic policy vs capitalistic policy basically. The concept it that people work harder when there are incentives. My blog has a socialist capitalist section, skip to the capitalist part which sums up why and how Austrian economic free market capitalist society's do well.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2011 10:33:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
my post was for the economic side
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2011 10:35:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/22/2011 10:22:01 PM, 000ike wrote:
Hayek stated:
"There can be no test by which we can discover what is 'socially unjust' because there is no subject by which such an injustice can be committed, and there are no rules of individual conduct the observance of which in the market order would secure to the individuals and groups the position which as such (as distinguished from the procedure by which it is determined) would appear just to us. [Social justice] does not belong to the category of error but to that of nonsense, like the term `a moral stone'."

The same case could be made for "Natural Rights." If you deny any form of universal moral declaration, then you transitively reject the notions upon which rightist ideologies are founded. To the same token, if you accept natural rights, which is of itself an objective decree, you cannot then rebuke social justice as having no means upon which to be measured or "rules of individual conduct."

We must hold justice, fairness, and equal opportunity to the same height that we hold freedom, but as you know, they cannot all coexist entirely as justice is a direct contradiction of freedom. You cannot simply ignore one for the other like the Anarchist or extreme Conservative does, or the Communist and Socialist do. There must be a balance of virtues.

That said, if you have a PDA or a court or ANYTHING that is to defend freedom and punish those that infringe upon the rights of others, there must also be a justice system that is to defend fairness and punish those that actively destroy it. To tie the two together, it could be said that fairness is a right.

What is there to disagree with?

no fairness is not a right not in any American law
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2011 10:38:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/22/2011 10:31:57 PM, 16kadams wrote:
so you pit socialistic policy vs capitalistic policy basically. The concept it that people work harder when there are incentives. My blog has a socialist capitalist section, skip to the capitalist part which sums up why and how Austrian economic free market capitalist society's do well.

You didn't address a word of what I said, you just made a response based on the title. Why is it okay for businesses, which ultimately run our society and our lives, to take advantage of consumers or even block a whole group of people from its doors? Something so attached to life and society is more than a private affair, it has the power to ruin lives directly. Why do you not defend justice? For what reason do you ignore one human-owed virtue, human RIGHT, for another right? Why do you ignore the fairness to one, to give utter freedom to the other. Neither freedom nor justice surpass eachother, they are equal, and in conflict they must be equally respected.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2011 10:52:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/22/2011 10:22:01 PM, 000ike wrote:
Hayek stated:
"There can be no test by which we can discover what is 'socially unjust' because there is no subject by which such an injustice can be committed, and there are no rules of individual conduct the observance of which in the market order would secure to the individuals and groups the position which as such (as distinguished from the procedure by which it is determined) would appear just to us. [Social justice] does not belong to the category of error but to that of nonsense, like the term `a moral stone'."

The same case could be made for "Natural Rights." If you deny any form of universal moral declaration, then you transitively reject the notions upon which rightist ideologies are founded. To the same token, if you accept natural rights, which is of itself an objective decree, you cannot then rebuke social justice as having no means upon which to be measured or "rules of individual conduct."

We must hold justice, fairness, and equal opportunity to the same height that we hold freedom, but as you know, they cannot all coexist entirely as justice is a direct contradiction of freedom. You cannot simply ignore one for the other like the Anarchist or extreme Conservative does, or the Communist and Socialist do. There must be a balance of virtues.

That said, if you have a PDA or a court or ANYTHING that is to defend freedom and punish those that infringe upon the rights of others, there must also be a justice system that is to defend fairness and punish those that actively destroy it. To tie the two together, it could be said that fairness is a right.

What is there to disagree with?

Oh 000ike, I feel like your presence has been a perpetual thorn in the side for the ancaps and libertarians here. It's great to watch but it must be tough.

Anyway, I don't feel like you need to accept social justice if you accept natural rights. If you reject social justice you're not ipso facto rejecting any form of universal moral declaration. I would also disagree that social justice is directly opposed to freedom (I don't think Rawls believed this either), but I suppose that definitions can differ. It can difficult to understand exactly what people say when they refer to 'social justice' - I immediately think of Rawls, for instance.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2011 11:03:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
A right is what you are capable of doing. Justice is what the world is capable of doing to you when you exercise your rights.

You may have the right to shoot someone in tbey head, but society has the right to make your life hell for it.

Right = Power. You could say that might makes right, and not technically be wrong.

If someone tells you that you don't have the right to do something after you just did it, point to the sky and proclaim rhat God demonstrated that you indeed had the right.

God's law is higher than man's law.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2011 3:54:30 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/22/2011 10:22:01 PM, 000ike wrote:
Hayek stated:
"There can be no test by which we can discover what is 'socially unjust' because there is no subject by which such an injustice can be committed, and there are no rules of individual conduct the observance of which in the market order would secure to the individuals and groups the position which as such (as distinguished from the procedure by which it is determined) would appear just to us. [Social justice] does not belong to the category of error but to that of nonsense, like the term `a moral stone'."

The same case could be made for "Natural Rights." If you deny any form of universal moral declaration, then you transitively reject the notions upon which rightist ideologies are founded. To the same token, if you accept natural rights, which is of itself an objective decree, you cannot then rebuke social justice as having no means upon which to be measured or "rules of individual conduct."

We must hold justice, fairness, and equal opportunity to the same height that we hold freedom, but as you know, they cannot all coexist entirely as justice is a direct contradiction of freedom. You cannot simply ignore one for the other like the Anarchist or extreme Conservative does, or the Communist and Socialist do. There must be a balance of virtues.

That said, if you have a PDA or a court or ANYTHING that is to defend freedom and punish those that infringe upon the rights of others, there must also be a justice system that is to defend fairness and punish those that actively destroy it. To tie the two together, it could be said that fairness is a right.

What is there to disagree with?

All of it, it is garbage. Courts are not about justice they are about equal. Life aint fair, it is extremely unfair. There is Individual Right Agency, but that requires maturity, therefore, just agency is presumed for adults.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2011 6:00:36 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/23/2011 3:54:30 AM, logicrules wrote:

All of it, it is garbage. Courts are not about justice they are about equal. Life aint fair, it is extremely unfair. There is Individual Right Agency, but that requires maturity, therefore, just agency is presumed for adults.

Are you joking? 1. Courts are not about justice, do you hear yourself? 2. Blaming the unfairness CREATED BY INDIVIDUAL MEN on life is one of the most asinine distributions of blame ever conceived. When life causes something unfair, we can commiserate, but there is no one to blame. When a human being, of malicious character causes something unfair, how dare you not prosecute him.

Now, don't strawman my argument for trivial cases of unfairness because I could easily do the same for trivial violations of freedom.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2011 6:54:13 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/23/2011 6:00:36 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/23/2011 3:54:30 AM, logicrules wrote:

All of it, it is garbage. Courts are not about justice they are about equal. Life aint fair, it is extremely unfair. There is Individual Right Agency, but that requires maturity, therefore, just agency is presumed for adults.

Are you joking? 1. Courts are not about justice, do you hear yourself? 2. Blaming the unfairness CREATED BY INDIVIDUAL MEN on life is one of the most asinine distributions of blame ever conceived. When life causes something unfair, we can commiserate, but there is no one to blame. When a human being, of malicious character causes something unfair, how dare you not prosecute him.

Now, don't strawman my argument for trivial cases of unfairness because I could easily do the same for trivial violations of freedom.

Yes, I know what I wrote and yes the Courts are not about Justice, welcome to the real world. Fair means to apply equally, very difficult but also, UNJUST. Malicious character is legal, if one is prosecuted for it give me his/her name, there is a civil action remedy for that. Life is unfair, beginning with birth.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2011 7:25:36 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/22/2011 10:38:16 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/22/2011 10:31:57 PM, 16kadams wrote:
so you pit socialistic policy vs capitalistic policy basically. The concept it that people work harder when there are incentives. My blog has a socialist capitalist section, skip to the capitalist part which sums up why and how Austrian economic free market capitalist society's do well.

You didn't address a word of what I said, you just made a response based on the title. Why is it okay for businesses, which ultimately run our society and our lives, to take advantage of consumers or even block a whole group of people from its doors?
Why is it OK for government to do that? Why is it OK for the general populous to do that?
Something so attached to life and society is more than a private affair, it has the power to ruin lives directly.
So you want to make it a public affair?
Why do you not defend justice?
People are defending justice.
For what reason do you ignore one human-owed virtue, human RIGHT, for another right? Why do you ignore the fairness to one, to give utter freedom to the other. Neither freedom nor justice surpass eachother, they are equal, and in conflict they must be equally respected.
Rights are better when not inherent;
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2011 12:44:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/23/2011 7:25:36 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 12/22/2011 10:38:16 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/22/2011 10:31:57 PM, 16kadams wrote:
so you pit socialistic policy vs capitalistic policy basically. The concept it that people work harder when there are incentives. My blog has a socialist capitalist section, skip to the capitalist part which sums up why and how Austrian economic free market capitalist society's do well.

You didn't address a word of what I said, you just made a response based on the title. Why is it okay for businesses, which ultimately run our society and our lives, to take advantage of consumers or even block a whole group of people from its doors?
Why is it OK for government to do that? Why is it OK for the general populous to do that?
Something so attached to life and society is more than a private affair, it has the power to ruin lives directly.
So you want to make it a public affair?
Why do you not defend justice?
People are defending justice.
For what reason do you ignore one human-owed virtue, human RIGHT, for another right? Why do you ignore the fairness to one, to give utter freedom to the other. Neither freedom nor justice surpass eachother, they are equal, and in conflict they must be equally respected.
Rights are better when not inherent;

Not inhrent? Are they conditional?
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2011 1:28:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Something so attached to life and society is more than a private affair, it has the power to ruin lives directly. Why do you not defend justice? For what reason do you ignore one human-owed virtue, human RIGHT, for another right?:

Could not the same be asked of you?

There is a fundamental difference between how you see victims and victimizers versus pro-capitalists. Hayekians and Keynesians tend to view "fairness" from completely different perspectives. That needs to be addressed beforehand to make any sense of it.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2011 1:38:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/23/2011 12:44:47 PM, logicrules wrote:
At 12/23/2011 7:25:36 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 12/22/2011 10:38:16 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/22/2011 10:31:57 PM, 16kadams wrote:
so you pit socialistic policy vs capitalistic policy basically. The concept it that people work harder when there are incentives. My blog has a socialist capitalist section, skip to the capitalist part which sums up why and how Austrian economic free market capitalist society's do well.

You didn't address a word of what I said, you just made a response based on the title. Why is it okay for businesses, which ultimately run our society and our lives, to take advantage of consumers or even block a whole group of people from its doors?
Why is it OK for government to do that? Why is it OK for the general populous to do that?
Something so attached to life and society is more than a private affair, it has the power to ruin lives directly.
So you want to make it a public affair?
Why do you not defend justice?
People are defending justice.
For what reason do you ignore one human-owed virtue, human RIGHT, for another right? Why do you ignore the fairness to one, to give utter freedom to the other. Neither freedom nor justice surpass eachother, they are equal, and in conflict they must be equally respected.
Rights are better when not inherent;

Not inhrent? Are they conditional?

Ideally, yes.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2011 2:24:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/23/2011 1:38:17 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 12/23/2011 12:44:47 PM, logicrules wrote:
At 12/23/2011 7:25:36 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 12/22/2011 10:38:16 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/22/2011 10:31:57 PM, 16kadams wrote:
so you pit socialistic policy vs capitalistic policy basically. The concept it that people work harder when there are incentives. My blog has a socialist capitalist section, skip to the capitalist part which sums up why and how Austrian economic free market capitalist society's do well.

You didn't address a word of what I said, you just made a response based on the title. Why is it okay for businesses, which ultimately run our society and our lives, to take advantage of consumers or even block a whole group of people from its doors?
Why is it OK for government to do that? Why is it OK for the general populous to do that?
Something so attached to life and society is more than a private affair, it has the power to ruin lives directly.
So you want to make it a public affair?
Why do you not defend justice?
People are defending justice.
For what reason do you ignore one human-owed virtue, human RIGHT, for another right? Why do you ignore the fairness to one, to give utter freedom to the other. Neither freedom nor justice surpass eachother, they are equal, and in conflict they must be equally respected.
Rights are better when not inherent;

Not inhrent? Are they conditional?

Ideally, yes.

Then they are privileges, not rights.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2011 2:44:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
It appears the contention is whether people are naturally inclined to being unjust, to which I reply, people ARE unjust, with no outside duress aside their imaginations.

So, without governance, will people be even more FCKed up? Obviously, lest there would be no governance.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2011 2:49:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
No governance is impossible. There is always some form of government.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2011 3:03:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/23/2011 2:24:29 PM, logicrules wrote:
At 12/23/2011 1:38:17 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 12/23/2011 12:44:47 PM, logicrules wrote:
At 12/23/2011 7:25:36 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 12/22/2011 10:38:16 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/22/2011 10:31:57 PM, 16kadams wrote:
so you pit socialistic policy vs capitalistic policy basically. The concept it that people work harder when there are incentives. My blog has a socialist capitalist section, skip to the capitalist part which sums up why and how Austrian economic free market capitalist society's do well.

You didn't address a word of what I said, you just made a response based on the title. Why is it okay for businesses, which ultimately run our society and our lives, to take advantage of consumers or even block a whole group of people from its doors?
Why is it OK for government to do that? Why is it OK for the general populous to do that?
Something so attached to life and society is more than a private affair, it has the power to ruin lives directly.
So you want to make it a public affair?
Why do you not defend justice?
People are defending justice.
For what reason do you ignore one human-owed virtue, human RIGHT, for another right? Why do you ignore the fairness to one, to give utter freedom to the other. Neither freedom nor justice surpass eachother, they are equal, and in conflict they must be equally respected.
Rights are better when not inherent;

Not inhrent? Are they conditional?

Ideally, yes.

Then they are privileges, not rights.

Do you ever read what I say???

Rights should be gained, but not inherently given.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2011 3:09:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/23/2011 1:28:51 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Something so attached to life and society is more than a private affair, it has the power to ruin lives directly. Why do you not defend justice? For what reason do you ignore one human-owed virtue, human RIGHT, for another right?:

Could not the same be asked of you?

There is a fundamental difference between how you see victims and victimizers versus pro-capitalists. Hayekians and Keynesians tend to view "fairness" from completely different perspectives. That needs to be addressed beforehand to make any sense of it.

Would you deny that blocking people from the opportunity to ascend in life just because they were born looking a certain way is unfair? Businesses are the pathways to success and decency for the masses, the are the ladder that our society has input, the structures so many depend upon. Seeing that the welfare of others is naturally and intrinsically attached to these institutions, there cannot be this laissez faire type attitude to their actions. Unless you have a plan to make society NOT dependent on these, businesses, for the sake of fairness there must be regulation.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2011 3:57:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Would you deny that blocking people from the opportunity to ascend in life just because they were born looking a certain way is unfair?:

Can you offer something specific?

Businesses are the pathways to success and decency for the masses, the are the ladder that our society has input, the structures so many depend upon. Seeing that the welfare of others is naturally and intrinsically attached to these institutions, there cannot be this laissez faire type attitude to their actions. Unless you have a plan to make society NOT dependent on these, businesses, for the sake of fairness there must be regulation.:

Explain how regulation creates fairness when the very nature of business is competition. It's almost as if you shift blame from human nature to external factors. Blaming a laissez faire economy for creating human nature is a massive strawman.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)