• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Social justice

What does "sociail justice" mean to you?

  • Equality

    Votes: 13 22.8%

  • Solidarity

    Votes: 7 12.3%

  • Wealth redistribution

    Votes: 21 36.8%

  • Socialism

    Votes: 16 28.1%

  • Justice

    Votes: 17 29.8%

  • Unjustice

    Votes: 11 19.3%

  • Good

    Votes: 9 15.8%

  • Evil

    Votes: 9 15.8%

  • Prosperity

    Votes: 7 12.3%

  • Other

    Votes: 17 29.8%
  • Total voters
    57
HumanBeing said:
:roll:
You were the one advocating for a police state (one with a complete monopoly at that). I was advocating for a state in which police are only even relevant if people break one of three basic, ethically justifiable natural rights of those around them. You wanted a system where people are forced to participate by threat of violence and imprisonment. I wanted a system where we don't get to force others into participating in anything other than respecting 3 fundamental rights of human beings.
Click to expand...

very good!
 
Canell said:
Wow, are you saying the "nanny state" should rule the day?
Click to expand...

LOL! Nothing wrong with nannies - I was brought up by one (until I went away to school). :mrgreen:

But I don't know how you got 'the nanny state' out of anything I wrote. Evolving a system wherein no one is allowed to suffer because of poor decisions (often the result of circumstances beyond their control) is neither immoral nor impractical. The epithet 'nanny state' is a meaningless derogative used by some conservatives to criticise humane systems (with which they obviously do not agree).

The poll and OP inquired as to what we understand by the phrase 'social justice', and I gave my understanding. I would be more interested in hearing your understanding rather than your misapprehension of my words. :)
 
cpwill said:
Well, he's British. Not for him the animating contest of freedom - far better the lukewarm embrace of the soulless state office waiting room, the gentle ministrations of Health and Safety.
Click to expand...

LOL, you have a way with words. Now work on the understanding of societal differences. Not every society values the fierce embrace of commercial expediency above all things. :mrgreen:
 
Leo said:
LOL, you have a way with words. Now work on the understanding of societal differences. Not every society values the fierce embrace of commercial expediency above all things. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

;) I think it's funny you suggested I work on understanding societal differences, an then proceeded to speak to the exact same item I identified. ;) But thank you :).
 
Leo said:
But I don't know how you got 'the nanny state' out of anything I wrote.
Click to expand...

Well you want the state to save people from their mistakes. Ironically that's exactly what a nanny does with an infant.
People have a right to their mistakes.
If you go trough all the discussion, you would see we agreed that "social justice" is about "equal rights" and not redistribution of wealth and services. No privileges to anyone.
 
ernst barkmann said:
...in republican government, rights are secure, becuase the majority has no power to change or abolish rights, no matter if 99 % of the people want to...becuase rights are unalienable
Click to expand...

I understand your political theory. It works just like every other political theory until you put it to the test of reality. The reality is, the republican government isn't representing the best interest of the people very much. The truth is, they are representing either the party they belong to or the highest bidder.

As for unalienable rights, the republican government of the US passed the Patriot Act and its amendments. This republican government does not view your rights as inalienable either. This is reality. This republican government thinks you have to give up your inalienable rights in order for them to protect you from suspected terrorists.

So what really would hold a pure republican government responsible to the people is a mixed democracy where the people can at least call for a referendum if something like the Patriot Act passes. Just this possibility will go a long way toward having real individual justice as well as social justice. Why, because if politicians know something will lose in a referendum then they will try to get it right before a referendum occurs.
 
Canell said:
Well you want the state to save people from their mistakes. Ironically that's exactly what a nanny does with an infant.
People have a right to their mistakes.
Click to expand...

Well yes, you are correct to the extent that I think it preferable that safety nets exist to protect people, and in particular - their dependents, from the worst consequences of their errors of judgment. Whether mistakes are something subject to rights is too complex to be discussed here. That is best suited to a philosophical arena. But perhaps you are dealing with the sorts of conceptual extremes where even a murderer is exempt from the consequences of his actions - that is clearly not what I mean. My concept of social justice devolves about the reduction of human suffering, irrespective of who or what may have been responsible.

Canell said:
If you go trough all the discussion, you would see we agreed that "social justice" is about "equal rights" and not redistribution of wealth and services. No privileges to anyone.
Click to expand...

Of course social justice is primarily concerned with the provision of equal rights, and the abolition of privilege. The provision of social justice has little to do with the redistribution of wealth, and I am not sure why so many people keep bringing that up. The provision of a working minimum wage, the provision of pensions, annual leave, sick leave, maternity leave, universal healthcare, free tertiary education, etc. may have some impact upon profit margins, but they do not represent a substantial redistribution of wealth. And even in the event that they did, their positive effect upon the well-being of society would more than compensate for any reduction in returns to the shareholders. The benefits of a better educated society with a lesser disparity of wealth, lesser violence, less crime, and less poverty, are incalculable.
 
kenc said:
I understand your political theory. It works just like every other political theory until you put it to the test of reality. The reality is, the republican government isn't representing the best interest of the people very much. The truth is, they are representing either the party they belong to or the highest bidder.

As for unalienable rights, the republican government of the US passed the Patriot Act and its amendments. This republican government does not view your rights as inalienable either. This is reality. This republican government thinks you have to give up your inalienable rights in order for them to protect you from suspected terrorists.

So what really would hold a pure republican government responsible to the people is a mixed democracy where the people can at least call for a referendum if something like the Patriot Act passes. Just this possibility will go a long way toward having real individual justice as well as social justice. Why, because if politicians know something will lose in a referendum then they will try to get it right before a referendum occurs.
Click to expand...

what i have put before you in what the american founding fathers created, and american was run on that idea, from its beginning until 1913.

when even though our constitution states our government must be republican, the government has moved america towards democracy.

it is not republican government that is the problem.... it is democracy, our founders stated democratic government are very factious/ filled with special interest..in federalist 10.

america have been taught america is a democracy which is false , and it is this teaching that has cause america to decline, becuase we as a people are not following the constitution, but the ideas of democracy with are base on collectivism, and special interest of who has the most money.

under republican government faction/ special interest is limited because power is separated in our government with checks and balances, and it is kept to a minimum, and not allowed to take over a system of republican government.

the founders hated special interest, and those who would try to buy our government, so they created republican government, however it has been destroyed by the federal government who wish to serve their own interest and to be bought and paid for politicians.

republican government needs to be stored, and put back in place, instead of the democratic one the federal government as imposed on the people.
 
ernst barkmann said:
in republican government, the people also have a say in government, they elect representatives also, however power in NOT only in the hands of the people,..... but the states themselves also.

republican government separates power.....one of the checks and balances or government.

if you put absolute power directly into, 1 person or a few, and all of the people, it will become tyrannical, and that is a fact.

that is why James Madison says in federalist 47.."The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, selfappointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.

the elective is the voting public, it you give them all of the power to vote directly for every federal politician, it is tyranny, becuase the people will use that power, and the majority of that power will take away rights of the minority.

...
Click to expand...

ernst barkmann said:
...republican government needs to be stored, and put back in place, instead of the democratic one the federal government as imposed on the people.
Click to expand...

While I think the people were allowed to vote from the very first election, it seems to me that you are advocating that the people not be allowed vote at all and have to trust in their government to do the right thing for them. While I personally don't agree with this I am willing to do the experiment and give up my right to vote in the US if everyone else would and turn back the political clock until 1788. Let's see how well the government does when it doesn't have to worry about the general consensus of the people.
 
cpwill said:
Well, he's British. Not for him the animating contest of freedom - far better the lukewarm embrace of the soulless state office waiting room, the gentle ministrations of Health and Safety.
Click to expand...

I love how you think that depending on a private insurance company for your healthcare, that will try to take as much from you as possible, while withholding healthcare from you, is somehow more liberating than having a public democratically accountable healthcare system ....

Ask anyone that lives in a country with not for profit public healthcare, see if they feel enslaved or lacking freedom, then ask someone who has to go into debt to pay for cancer treatment ....

You have a strange concept of "liberty."
 
ernst barkmann said:
read about democracy and collectivism.

democracy derives its rights from the collect group,............... not individuals.

America was created with people having individual rights, there are no collective rights in American government.
Click to expand...

Collective rights are necessary for individual rights.

Even the whole basis of Capitalism depends on collective rights, i.e. contract, and property, those are collective, if I own a big swath of land I need everyone to recognize that I own that land.

You can't seperate the 2, especially with economics given that economics is by definition a social activity with social consequences.
 
Canell said:
OK, let me lay it out for you. :)

- "Social justice is justice exercised within a society" - fair enough, justice it should be;
- "particularly as it is applied to and among the various social classes of a society." - that simply means "no privileges for any class in society";
- "A socially just society is one based upon the principles of equality" - Please, note: "the principles of equality".

Why do leftist so often imply "wealth equality" instead of "rights equality"?
Click to expand...

Most leftists don't imply wealth equality, they imply access to capital equality.

And that is because you're rights depend on access to capital and resources.
 
Phys251 said:
Ah, yes, the Romans 9:21 argument. But that was St. Paul, not Jesus. Consider the following:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice
Click to expand...

Not only that, but St. Paul in that argument was not discussing economics AT ALL, what he's saying is a form of James 1:13 we shouldn't blame God for things because he in the end with work things out, also that we should allow God for mold us like clay.

If you want to read about the scriptures and social justice read http://www.debatepolitics.com/religious-discussions/156925-social-justice.html

The prophetic tradition of which Jesus was the zenith, and the 1st century church was largely about social justice.
 
Canell said:
What do peace and love have to do with "social justice"? What does charity have to do with redistribution of wealth in one form or another, as frequently presented by socialist preachers?
Charity is charity - it's a product of one's free will. Unlike mandatory taxation.

I found a good definition of "social justice":

I agree with such a definition. "Social justice" is about justice (rights), not income.
Click to expand...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/religious-discussions/156925-social-justice.html

Charity is a translation from the word Agape, it was never about philanthropy, it was a way of dealing with your fellow man, and the manifestation of that in the scriptures was the early church, it wasn't "charity" it was communitarian.

It's not about redistribution, it's about democratization, "holding in common."
 
Jerry said:
I for one wasn't aware 'social justice' had any religious roots, or related to religion in any way. It's a purely political Leftist term used in modern propaganda, nothing more.
Click to expand...

Read it's history, the social justice movement began with christians, infact socialism before marx was almost entirely the domain of christians, and not people who happend to be christians, priests, monks and others that are motivated by their christianity. Infact the term was coined by a Jesuit priest.

And after Marxism and secular socialism became popular, social justice becamse a battle cry of the christian socialists, who opposed marxist secular socialism, but had a communitarian social theology.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/religious-discussions/156925-social-justice.html
 
kenc said:
While I think the people were allowed to vote from the very first election, it seems to me that you are advocating that the people not be allowed vote at all and have to trust in their government to do the right thing for them. While I personally don't agree with this I am willing to do the experiment and give up my right to vote in the US if everyone else would and turn back the political clock until 1788. Let's see how well the government does when it doesn't have to worry about the general consensus of the people.
Click to expand...

no ,I am not saying give up your vote, I am saying that in republican government the people vote for their u.s. house representatives, and the people vote for their state representatives, those state representatives then appoint the u.s. senators of their state.

this is know as separation of powers through representation. the people elect the house, and the state appoint the senate, this way power in not just in the hands of the people but the states also, so there can be no majority rule by the voting public.

this is what as know as 1 direct vote , and 1 indirect vote, and the president is elected by the electoral college, another indirect vote, those are also chosen by the state legislatures.

the founders say power should never be in just one set of hands, because that power will corrupt, that is why republican government puts powers in two different sets of hands, so it will limit corruption.

problem is we have depart from republican government 100 years ago and moves towards democracy which has corrupted the u.s.
 
RGacky3 said:
Collective rights are necessary for individual rights.

Even the whole basis of Capitalism depends on collective rights, i.e. contract, and property, those are collective, if I own a big swath of land I need everyone to recognize that I own that land.

You can't seperate the 2, especially with economics given that economics is by definition a social activity with social consequences.
Click to expand...


rights are not collective.

the group IE...does not determine what rights are, my right or your rights do not hinge of what other people think.

there founders state rights are individual.

if rights were collective, rights would not be unalienable, they would be open to interpretation, whenever the collective chosen to alter of abolish them.
 
RGacky3 said:
You want to get quotes on what the founding fathers thought about capitalism and finance and so on?
Click to expand...

I am discussing the structure of the federal government, not finance.

separation of powers,

checks and balances of government.

democratic government as compared to republican government.
 
ernst barkmann said:
rights are not collective.

the group IE...does not determine what rights are, my right or your rights do not hinge of what other people think.

there founders state rights are individual.

if rights were collective, rights would not be unalienable, they would be open to interpretation, whenever the collective chosen to alter of abolish them.
Click to expand...

Oh they absolutely are, your right to free speach is also a right to not hear other peoples speach if you so choose, property rights are your right to exclude others from a piece of nature, it is also the right to state protection, they all involve your relation to others.

I am discussing the structure of the federal government, not finance.

separation of powers,

checks and balances of government.

democratic government as compared to republican government.
Click to expand...

Republican just means anti-monarchical, all democracies are also republics, also democracy is not one type of government, it's a concept, i.e. demo (people) cracy (rule), that can manifest in many different ways.
 
RGacky3 said:
I love how you think that depending on a private insurance company for your healthcare, that will try to take as much from you as possible, while withholding healthcare from you, is somehow more liberating than having a public democratically accountable healthcare system ....
Click to expand...

Absolutely. One of these items I can control, it is mine, I can fire it at will and get service from another. In a market, the providers are beholden to the purchasers. In government, providers are beholden at most to their supervisors, but significantly less so.

You have a strange concept of "liberty."
Click to expand...

well it is a pre-progressive idea of liberty, liberty as lack of restriction of movement. the progressive idea of liberty (having government take resources from you and constrict your movement in order to provide a minimum level of sustenance), I'll admit, isn't really for me.
 
RGacky3 said:
Oh they absolutely are, your right to free speach is also a right to not hear other peoples speach if you so choose, property rights are your right to exclude others from a piece of nature, it is also the right to state protection, they all involve your relation to others..
Click to expand...

that is not what I mean, I mean my rights are not for you and any other person or group to decide on, meaning the voting public cannot get together and vote, to take or infringe on my rights because they just don't like how I exercise them.

example ..smoking bans are illegal, because the voting public has no authority to dictate my property has to be smoke-free, its my property, not the public's, when the public does something like that then they are making rights collective, and the founders state rights are individual.

meaning no one has control over another person rights.



RGacky3 said:
Republican just means anti-monarchical, all democracies are also republics, also democracy is not one type of government, it's a concept, i.e. demo (people) cracy (rule), that can manifest in many different ways.
Click to expand...

again not what I am saying, a republic is a government which has 3 branches of government.

the u.s. is a republic of republics, and each a republican form of government, which separates power into the hands of the people and the states.

democratic government concentrates power only into the hands of the people, and that leads to corruption, because when any one person of group of people have all the powers they will be corrupt

this is why the founders put power in the hands of the states also, to limit that corruption, but the check and balances of government has been removed with the 17th amendment.
 
cpwill said:
Absolutely. One of these items I can control, it is mine, I can fire it at will and get service from another. In a market, the providers are beholden to the purchasers. In government, providers are beholden at most to their supervisors, but significantly less so.
Click to expand...

No. In Canada, the government makes zero decisions about health care (health care is provided by private entities, and paid for via taxation. And you can't get denied coverage because of "pre-existing" flaws, like the fact of being a human being sometimes subject to things beyond your control.

I hasten to add that I'm not holding the system up as superior to the American one; America will hopefully deal with its healthcare problems in its own, effective and decent way, and Canada will repair its flaws and issues in whatever way we deem best.

I was only responding to your universalist notion that the American way must be better. Well, maybe it is. For Americans. Not for everyone, however.

Heck, it's so popular here that our PM, who openly derided universal health care back when he was a mere political wonk, will now simply not raise the issue at all.

Ever.

Because he'd be turfed, on that issue alone.



well it is a pre-progressive idea of liberty, liberty as lack of restriction of movement. the progressive idea of liberty (having government take resources from you and constrict your movement in order to provide a minimum level of sustenance), I'll admit, isn't really for me.
Click to expand...

I think you're elevating theory as somehow more pertinent than lived reality.
 
cpwill said:
Absolutely. One of these items I can control, it is mine, I can fire it at will and get service from another. In a market, the providers are beholden to the purchasers. In government, providers are beholden at most to their supervisors, but significantly less so.
Click to expand...

No they arn't, you can sack your insurence company and try get another one, but good luck with that, the companies know you NEED insurance and will gouge you, like they do, for more and more profits, the individual purchasers need the insurance company, not vise versa, the insurance companies know this, and then when you get sick they'll put you in debt, lessening your options even more, and limiting your actual freedom.

Public healthcare is beholdent to the voters in the end, and you have more liberty since they arn't trying to gouge you, and you don't have to go in debt.

Also it's only payment, not actual treatment, the product is universal.

well it is a pre-progressive idea of liberty, liberty as lack of restriction of movement. the progressive idea of liberty (having government take resources from you and constrict your movement in order to provide a minimum level of sustenance), I'll admit, isn't really for me.
Click to expand...

The progressive idea of liberty is ACTUAL freedom, i.e. you cannot be free if you have no access to capital and one person has all of it.

This idea of liberty, i.e. being free do actaully do things, goes way back, before progressives.

You can't be free, if you are a debt slave, or a wage slave, you can be formally free, but not in reality.
 
ernst barkmann said:
that is not what I mean, I mean my rights are not for you and any other person or group to decide on, meaning the voting public cannot get together and vote, to take or infringe on my rights because they just don't like how I exercise them.

example ..smoking bans are illegal, because the voting public has no authority to dictate my property has to be smoke-free, its my property, not the public's, when the public does something like that then they are making rights collective, and the founders state rights are individual.

meaning no one has control over another person rights.
Click to expand...

oh of coarse, in principle rights are rights.

Property is not a right though, it doens't exist in a state of nature, it needs violence to exist.

I can talk without the state, it requires violence to make me stop, thus freedom of speach.

If I claim that a large swathe of land is my land it is nothing more than an empty claim without the threat of violence, so property is NOT a right.

As far as smoking, yes, if you own a restaurant your providing a public service, your property is protected by the community and recognized as such, and as thus the community has a right to say if you wnat to have a restaurant in our community, we want it to be smoke free, becasue we want people to be able to use public services in our community without fear of second hand smoke.

again not what I am saying, a republic is a government which has 3 branches of government.

the u.s. is a republic of republics, and each a republican form of government, which separates power into the hands of the people and the states.

democratic government concentrates power only into the hands of the people, and that leads to corruption, because when any one person of group of people have all the powers they will be corrupt

this is why the founders put power in the hands of the states also, to limit that corruption, but the check and balances of government has been removed with the 17th amendment.
Click to expand...

You're just making that up, that isn't what a "republic" means, there are many different types of republics, also the states are also (in theory) in the hands of the people.

A democratic government CAN and generally does, have checks and balances and constitutions.

The states are also democratic ....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom