What is Social Justice?

I thought I would pose a wide open question, to a rather complex topic. What is social justice?

Some things to think about are: what determines if an action, plan, or restriction is socially just (e.g. entitlement, market, theory, dialogue, dictator, ethical theory, common good)? How would social justice be enforced (e.g. taxation, voting, laws, courts, police)? How do you protect lower class, or minority populations that lack political, economic, or social capital? What types of government would be best suited for fostering a society that valued social justice?

It is a form of relationship... The question is not what determines it; but who... Justice is a quality, usually a quantity, Yet what ever the circumstances are, justice is not determined in advance, but by the people in light of their needs in relation to the circumstances...

Tyranny of the majority eh Fido?

I don't see how this would bring about anything other than a pyramid-within-a-pyramid structure: Individuals within a local community will occupy a small pyramid, while each locality will vary in its gauge. Instead of flattening one big pyramid by ensuring equal opportunities for individuals, each community government would have to do so for each community and somebody (who?) somewhere needs to make sure each community is equal.

You should run for Handicapper General!

The problem is what I have been saying all along: How can you tell what is fair and what is not?

With that said, how far does it go? Parenting provides unequal opportunities, genetics provide unequal opportunities, geographical location provides unequal opportunities, and most problematic, opportunities are valued subjectively. You are posed with an impossible task.

We cannot guarantee equal choices without eliminating choices that are naturally available for some and not for others. If people are excluded from opportunities that they naturally would have had, then they are robbed of their personhood.

My gross income for a year is $32000. This gets taxed down to around 23-24K. Yet, as of right now, I cannot name one benefit I have derived from the government. I pay for my own health insurance. I pay full market value of my rent. I have never had assistance from the police (rather I have the constant threat of harassment and imprisonment because I enjoy marijuana when I am at home and trying to relax).

With that said, it is easy to implement programs designed at trying to "level the playing field", but that says nothing about whether they are fair or not.

Because all economic measure is subjective. No objective government agency will ever level the playing field.

In no other way are people today molded and domesticated (for lack of a better word) than through mandated and standardized education. All education does is make sure children can step into the role of their parents as they move on.

You are right that there will still be localize hierarchies, but no one will have the massive power that President, governors, Senators, and Congressmen have. The idea is to limit how much potential power one group can concentrate.

Merit comes into play in localized communities. It is far easier to do away with a local figure of power than the President for incompetence or bad decision making. Personally, I see social justice with a dimension of merit incorporated into it. There is nothing wrong with privilege and fortune when achieved in a just way. Entitled privilege and merited privilege or two totally different concepts.

Sir; if you and I have a dispute over justice, how does that become a public issue... Yet, if there is a wide spread instance of injustice affecting large numbers, how can the government stand in the way of justice... Try to consider what Abalard said: That Ius (Justice) is the Genus, and Lex (Law) is a species of it.... The meaning is simple: that if law is not also justice it is not law... And that is the situation where the minority in this land in its tyranny of democracy denied, that injustice is protected and so encouraged...

If the great numbers are denied justice by a fraction under the protection of law, what is that??? Is tyranny of a minority some how better that tyranny of a majority???

Think for a moment, because I am not saying anything other than full democracy, with consensus... But within that, all relationships should be free to work themself out...

That is freedom, but it is unlikely that anyone in such a free society would dare to practice injustice if people were free to deal with them as individuals... We do have to rember that people can make their own deals and settle their own disputes... But Government should stand for justice, as ours does in word, but not in deed.....

justice means equality before the law

Wouldn't this require that the laws were just? Otherwise justice would be nothing more than what the lawmakers dictated.

Yes. The content of the law is another issue, obviously an important one with many subtleties. First, justice needs to be blind. As for that content, to generalize enormously, I would say that the objective of the law should be reciprocity: i.e. 'an eye for an eye.' If x harms y, x is punished and if appropriate, remunerates y (e.g. theft), with punishments fitting crimes on a relative scale. Obviously tht vague..law is a big subject lol. Re economic affairs, I can be more specific; the law's primary objective should be to uphold the right to own private property and enforce contractual obligations. Those are the essentials needed for free economic activity. We could do away with almost everything else. For example, all the SEC and CFTC regulation is absurd; it almost always fails to prevent crimes while burdening those who would have followed the law anyhow. The statutes for fraud are all we need to 'regulate' the markets. As with so many things, the desire for preventative justice rules out both justice and efficiency. (by prev. justice I mean punishing someone for doing something which government percieves could do harm, rather then for actually doing harm: DUI for example).