A Dialogue on Social Justice
What Is social justice? Economist Walter Williams has an answer.
"I keep what I earn, and you keep what you earn. If you believe that you deserve some of what I earn, please explain why."
Dr. Williams is skeptical about the motives of those people and special-interest groups who demand that politicians and tenured bureaucrats be empowered by law to threaten violence against those who benefit from voluntary exchange, all in the name of collective justice. He is also skeptical about the results promised by the defenders of such intervention.
We live in an era in which voters have elected politicians who vote for programs of state intervention. People with badges and guns threaten those who prosper through exchange. Yet, lo and behold, economic inequality is still with us. But what we find is this: those who get very rich seem to be able to avoid the long arm of the law. In fact, they seem to be the beneficiaries of it. A century after the Progressive movement gained its greatest triumphs -- the Federal Reserve System, the federal income tax, and the direct election of U.S. Senators -- there is still economic inequality. The spiritual heirs of the Progressive offer a solution: more of the same.
Those of us who remain skeptical of the Progressives and their heirs propose a rollback of the power of the state.
If you get individual justice, there will be greater social justice. That is our position. We are beginning to get a hearing. Meanwhile, the West's economy is in the hands of unelected central bankers and the few dozen major banks, which central banks represent. We are told that we need central banks in order to insure the independence of banking from politics. The defenders of social justice actually believe this -- all in the name of mass democracy. What we have are the most powerful cartels in history: commercial banking cartels.
Consistency is not one of the strengths of those who defend social justice.
To understand the rival positions better, imagine a debate between a political liberal and a skeptic.
Liberal: I come in the name of The People.
Skeptic: Which people?
L: The Downtrodden, The Dispossessed, The Exploited, The Victims of Malevolent Forces Beyond Their Control.
S: You mean swing voters on welfare.
L: I would not put it that way.
S: I didn't think you would.
L: You are an apologist for the unregulated free market.
S: I am an apologist for private ownership.
L: You mean "Every man for himself."
S: I mean "Every man with his own."
L. Some people have more than they need.
S: I have a solution for that.
L: What's your solution?
S: Sufficient economic growth, so that everyone has more than he needs.
L: But some people will still have more than others.
S: You are shifting the argument from "more than he needs" to "more than others."
L: They are the same thing.
S: No, they aren't.
L: I want a society in which everyone has what he needs. "From each according to his ability. To each according to his needs."
S: Exactly how do you intend to attain such a society?
L: By voter mobilization.
S: I get it. "Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote."
L: You are resorting to rhetoric.
S: Yes, I am. But it is rhetoric based on logic.
L: In your world, the rich would get richer, and the poor would get poorer.
S: In my world, the productive would get richer than the less productive.
L: As determined by the rich!
S: As determined by customers.
L: But the rich use advertising to exploit these customers.
S: They hire the same ad agencies that politicians hire in election years.
L: That's why we need campaign financing laws.
S: That's what the incumbents always say.
L: I want a level playing field.
S: As determined by the incumbents.
L: I want neutrality.
S: As determined by the incumbents.
L: I want one man, one vote.
S: As gerrymandered by the incumbents.
L: Are you saying that there is no neutrality?
S: Rival systems of moral cause and effect do not agree on what constitutes neutrality.
L: You mean to say that the playing field cannot be level?
S: Not when there are conflicting definitions of justice.
L: Then how can we achieve justice?
S: By reducing the power of people with badges and guns.
L: You mean smaller government?
S: I mean smaller civil government. There are other forms of government. How about greater self-government?
L: But that would place society into the hands of The Exploiters.
S: It would place the economy into the hands of customers. Society is what would then result.
L: But that leaves rich people in control.
S: In control of what?
L: The means of production.
S: To be used how?
L: To exploit The Masses.
S: By selling them what they want.
L: But they don't know what's good for them.
S: And you know what's good for them.
L: Yes, I do. That is why I want to help them. For their own good.
S: I figured as much when you said, "I come in the name of The People."
L: But I really am speaking on behalf of The People.
S: Who says?
L: The voters.
S: Why do they vote this way?
L: Because they have been taught to respect social justice.
S: Where were they taught this?
L: In the public schools.
S: Taught by whom?
L: Qualified instructors.
S: Screened by whom?
L: Experts.
S: Screened by whom?
L: Even better experts.
S: Empowered by whom?
L: Experts in positions of state authority.
S: How did they get there?
L: By competitive examination.
S: Designed by whom?
L: Experts.
S: Where did they get their expertise?
L: In college.
S: Financed by whom?
L: Taxpayers, mostly.
S: These experts are tenured -- beyond political control.
L: Yes.
S: Why?
L: To keep politics out of education.
S: By politics, you mean voters.
L: Yes.
S: You mean The Masses.
L: Yes.
S: Who don't know what's good for them.
L: Yes.
S: And you come in their name.
L: Yes.
S: Are you tenured?
L: Not yet.
S: But you're working on it.
L: Very hard.
S: Incumbency pays.
L: It has in public education.
S: But test scores have fallen for a generation.
L: That is because the voters have not been willing to finance education sufficiently.
S: Because they don't know what's good for them?
L: Exactly!
S: So, you want to restrict the free market.
L: Yes.
S: Why?
L: Because it's based on self-interest, not the public interest.
S: And you operate in the public interest.
L: Yes.
S: You are coming in the name of The Exploited Masses.
L: Always.
S: Why don't they speak on their own behalf? Why do they need you?
L: Because they are inarticulate.
S: So, you are more articulate than they are.
L: I have had more education.
S: But you want me to believe that you are not acting in terms of your self-interest.
L: Yes.
S: You want to set up government programs to operate on behalf of The Exploited Masses.
L: Yes.
S: Who will run these programs?
L: Experts.
S: Where did they get their expertise?
L: We've been through all this.
S: What will these experts be paid?
L: An honest day's wages for an honest day's labor.
S: As determined by whom?
L: Experts.
S: I see where this is going.
L: You catch on fast.
S: When will the taxpayers catch on?
L: When they have more education.
S: As administered by the teachers' union.
L: Whose members are experts.
S: Tenured experts.
L: Yes.
S: Except in California, where a judge just overturned tenure for tax-funded teachers.
L: There will be an appeal.
S: No doubt.
L: This will be reversed on appeal.
S: Why?
L: Because it is an attack on those who speak in the name of The People.
S: Folks pretty much just like you.
L: Educated people.
S: This is your version of neutrality.
L: Yes.
S: This is your version of the level playing field.
L: Yes.
S: It's tilted.
L: On behalf of The Masses. Therefore, it's level.
S: And those who speak in their name.
L: All playing fields should be level. Some should be more level than others.
S: That sounds strangely familiar.
L: Yes, it does, doesn't it?
S: I don't think we can agree on what constitutes the proper definition of "level."
L: Then the voters must decide.
S: Until they run out of other people's money.
L: You really are a skeptic.
S: I really am.
The moral of the story is this: all reasoning is circular. It just keeps rolling along.
There are vicious circles. There are virtuous circles. The debate over social justice is over which circle is vicious.
There are people with badges and guns. They defend someone's property. The debate is over whose property they should defend.
It's a debate over two views of theft:
Thou shalt not steal.
Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.
Take your pick.