What is social justice?

It seems we are forced to do a lot of things we don't want to do, and it's always in the name of "social justice." So what is social justice, and how does it effect us as individuals?

Well, to begin with, social justice is not about individuals, it is about society as a whole. To understand it, we first need a definition, so hear goes.

Social Justice:  Sacrificing personal or individual liberties and justice for the benefit of the whole of society.

Let me put it this way: Social Justice teaches the opposite of what the Bible teaches. The Bible, the Gospel, preaches rule of man or individual rights. It preaches individual choices and taking accountability for the individual choices we make. This is what lead up to capitalism, and is how Christianity has lead to a capitalistic system of government.

Social Justices is the opposite of this.  Social Justice teaches that, if you are better than someone else, then you have to have something taken from you to make you equal to everyone else.  If you are worse than everyone else, then you are given something that you did not earn to make you equal.

So, social justice is taking from those who have, giving to those who have not, in order so that all people are equal.  The problem with this is that if everyone is equal, there can be no rich and no poor.  If there are no rich, then there is nothing to shoot for.

In essence, everyone is poor.

Since everyone is taken care of regardless of effort, then no one makes an effort improve things.  The bottom line here is that everyone remains poor.  There is plenty of supply (such as food), but no one willing to pick it.  This is one of the reasons the former Soviet Union failed, because no one was willing to do any of the work.

Under the American version social justice (aptly called either progressivism or liberalism), if you earn more than "your fair share," your taxes are raised to make you equal.  If you make less than your fair share, social justice programs will help make you equal.  Social justice programs include welfare, social security, healthcare, and so forth.

They also include regulations to make sure you comply with the will of whatever modern fad is ongoing, such as regulations to prevent global warming. This is another excuse they use to raise your taxes, which is essentially what regulations are.

Yet since average working people are now poor, taxes are raised on the rich even higher so they continue to pay their fair share.  Yet they find ways to dodge taxes, or they themselves run out of money and become equal citizens.

Now, since there are fewer rich people, or (ideally) no rich people, this means that a euphoric world has been created where everyone is equal.  The aspect of this that so many on the left fail to understand is that if there are no rich people, than everyone is poor.  If everyone is equal, everyone is poor.

So, since there are no rich people, and the people are now all equally poor, there isn't enough money to sustain the system.  So it all comes tumbling down.

This is the fear of the people who oppose social justice.  It is the reason the Bible preaches individualism, because social justice fails every time.  In fact, Social Justice is only a happier term for socialism, liberalism, progressivism, and fascism.

The ideal goal of social justice is to create an ideal world, a euphoric world, where everyone works, everyone has a working wage, everyone has healthcare, everyone is taken care of in every way you can think of.  Yet it is never obtainable and never sustainable.  It is a system that fails every time it has been tried.

So, social justice is a system where those who have sacrifice what they earn for the benefit of the society as a whole.  But there is another aspect of social justice, and this is the sacrificing of individual justice for the good of the whole.  A quintessential example of this is the 2015 Baltimore Race Riots following the death of a black man in police custody.

In order to quell the riots, in order to generate peace, in order to create calm, Al Sharpton called for a Nationalization of the police force (social justice).  Less than 24 hours later, Baltimore Mayor, Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, threw the book at the police officers involved, indicting them on every charge they could think of.

The justice system is thereby ignored, and the individual rights of these men are sacrificed, for the good of society as a whole.  It does not matter if these men, these police officers, were guilty or innocent.  Their liberties are sacrificed for the good of the whole.

And it's obvious these charges were made based on social justice, because the legal system was not followed.  For Ferguson, Michael Brown was shot on August 9, 2014.  A grand jury took 108 days to review the case before returning a no indictment.  Eric Garner died on July 17, 2014, and a grand jury took 140 days to get a ruling against indicting. Freddie Gray died April 19, 2015, and he was indicted by Mayor Mosby without even consulting a grand jury, in less than 24 hours after receiving police department investigation results.

Is this justice? Or social justice?  Justice means the system of laws is followed to assure individual rights are not violated.  Social justice means personal rights take a back seat to good of society.

To me this system of social justice doesn't even sound good on the surface.  Yet because social justice sounds good on the surface, many people fall for it.

Further reading:

• Glenn Beck: What is social justice?

Should republicans fight social justice?

Some people say that in order for republicans to remain a viable second party is to support the liberal agenda, that includes the fundamental transformation of America from a melting pot to a salad bowl.

What do I mean?  Well, until the 1960s the United States was melting pot, whereby immigrants who came here voluntarily assimilated. They willingly studied American history and learned English.  They were proud to be here.

Today, we are considered intolerant and racist when we do this. So, instead of being a nation united, we are a nation divided.  So it's this divided nation that is the salad bowl.  Instead of being a nation of Americans (traditional America), we have become an America of Spanish Americans, African Americans, etc.

On June 12, Peter Beinart said that republicans either need to become democrats or they will lose viability.  That means that if they continue to hold on to their traditional American roots, they will cease to exist as a viable party.

He said that America today is no longer the America of WWII, that it is changing. He said there is nothing we can do about it, so we might as well accept it rather than fight it.  In fact, if we fight it, we will no longer be viable.

Beinart believes there is a demographic shift in America that includes a rising tide of immigrants, Hispanics, African-Americans, Native Americans, single women.

We as a nation need to be tolerant of different nationalities, as opposed to simply assimilating them. We need to be all for social justice and social change. 

The America of WWII is old news.  That country was racist, bigoted and homophobic.  That country was denying people their social justice. We were a superpower, but only because people got rich in this country at the expense of the poor and downtrodden in this country and everywhere else in the world.

He believed democrats are optimistic toward this.  He said: 

When grassroots Democrats look at the growing percentage of Latinos, African Americans, and young people, they see a growing constituency for tolerance and social justice.

Republicans, on the contrary, he believed are more pessimistic toward immigration.  He said:

When grassroots Republicans do, they see a growing constituency of takers, who want to turn America away from its exceptional nature.

In other words, he's saying the only thing we republicans can do to remain viable is to give up on our principles, give up on the American dream, and accept the fundamental transformation of America. Because if you don't, it's going to happen anyway.  If you don't join us, you will not be a part of us, and you won't be loved and adored as we will be.

There is a lot of truth in this.  There are a lot of republicans, or at least mainstream republicans, who are afraid to stand up for their principles and oppose Obama on amnesty, because they are afraid of just what Beinart was describing.

I honestly believe that the reason many members of a republican controlled congress keep trying to push for amnesty, even though most members of Congress, and most Americans, oppose it, is exactly because of what Beinart was describing.

I do not, however, think it is ever a good idea to give up on principle. America is always worth fighting for, even at the cost of losing elections. In this way, the only thing standing in the way of the republican establishment is the republican base, or the tea party.

Further reading:

• Washington Examiner: On Immigrant Surge, White House Story Falls Apart
• Breitbart: Pro-Bono Lawyers: Most Unaccompanied Border Children Eligible for Amnesty
• Heritage: Did Obama’s Amnesty Program Cause Spike in Child Immigrants?
• RushLimbaugh.com: Peter Beinart's Advice for Republicans: Become Democrats or Lose Forever - 06.16.14
• Newsbusters: Peter Beinart: ‘Fearful’ Republicans Hoping to ‘Reverse History’s Course’ Make a 2016 GOP Loss More Likely