• 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
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"?

You make a mistake. The inequality is in the rules that favor the wealthy over the working man or woman. Ths is where the argument lies. Some try to avoid this by falsely making the wealth equality cliam. It is really a rights equality argument.
 
You make a mistake. The inequality is in the rules that favor the wealthy over the working man or woman. Ths is where the argument lies. Some try to avoid this by falsely making the wealth equality cliam. It is really a rights equality argument.

OK, so if it's entirely a "rights" argument, I am all for that. That's what "social justice" should be about. :)
Glad we cleared that up. :)
 
Last edited:
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"?


you will find those who call for social justice, are also for the ideas of democracy, which seeks to achieve equality in every aspect of life thru redistribution, not what the founders created which is equality under the "eyes of justice"....one reason why America is not created as a democracy.
 
Last edited:
you will find those who call for social justice, are also for the ideas of democracy, which seeks to achieve equality in every aspect of life thru redistribution, not what the founders created which is equality under the "eyes of justice"....one reason why America is not created as a democracy.

I don't see the connection with democracy, which is people having a say in the matters that affect them, and redistribution to render everything equal.
 
I don't see the connection with democracy, which is people having a say in the matters that affect them, and redistribution to render everything equal.

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

I just don't think they are so integrally tied as you suggest. Democracy is vote by individuals vying for their personal preference. Again, it is the same old story, everyone knee jerks to exclaim "Majority Rule!" but fails to realize that a person may be in the majority on one issue and a minority in another. What gives democracy its validity is consensus, not collectivism.
 
OK, so if it's entirely a "rights" argument, I am all for that. That's what "social justice" should be about. :)
Glad we cleared that up. :)

Anytime. ;)
 
I just don't think they are so integrally tied as you suggest. Democracy is vote by individuals vying for their personal preference. Again, it is the same old story, everyone knee jerks to exclaim "Majority Rule!" but fails to realize that a person may be in the majority on one issue and a minority in another. What gives democracy its validity is consensus, not collectivism.

"Marxism holds that "democracy is the road to socialism"

"Democracy is indispensable to socialism"
Vladimir Lenin
 
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"?

What part of "particularly as it is applied to and among the various social classes of a society" did you not understand? Do you not realize that social justice is an inherently liberal idea championed by pioneers such as Martin Luther King, Jr., Susan B. Anthony, Jesus, and W.E.B. DuBois, even if they didn't use that term?

EDIT: OK, I just saw the exchange between you and Boo. Social justice does not necessarily imply forced equality--very few people support that. Rather, it means that we should not neglect the needs of the lower classes simply because they are less visible.
 
"Marxism holds that "democracy is the road to socialism"

"Democracy is indispensable to socialism"
Vladimir Lenin

Well then, sign me up for Marxism!!
 
Hi

I was thinking about "social justice" and wondered what it means to you when you hear the term. Please, explain. :)

To me means mob rule, much like democratic justice but less formalized.

kenc said:
Well then, sign me up for Marxism!!
Oh gawd. Read the quote again and consider the meaning more carefully. You've been arguing in favor of democracy, Marx just wanted to use it as a road to get to his final destination, much like other would-be dictators.
 
Well then, sign me up for Marxism!!


i dont think you really understand, what democracy is evil , and comes out of it.

but sure!.......your rights extend to being a marxist.

by the way, here is a few more quotes.

democracy is the most vile form of government-- james madison

[D]emocracy will soon degenerate into an anarchy, such an anarchy that every man will do what is right in his own eyes and no man's life or property or reputation or liberty will be secure, and every one of these will soon mould itself into a system of subordination of all the moral virtues and intellectual abilities, all the powers of wealth, beauty, wit and science, to the wanton pleasures, the capricious will, and the execrable cruelty of one or a very few. -- john adams

Remember democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. -- john adams

[D]emocracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. --james madison

The known propensity of a democracy is to licentiousness which the ambitious call, and ignorant believe to be liberty. --fissher ames

We are now forming a republican government. Ideal liberty is neither found in despotism or the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments. --alexander hamilton

[In a democracy] a common passion or interest will, in almost every case , be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert results from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual.--james madison


Democracy, whether it is direct or representative is a failure. Always has been and always will be, for one simple reason...it is unrestrained.
What the majority decides today becomes law tomorrow...until the next majority takes it away or amends it the day after. Legislations are driven by emotions rather than logic and he who controls the information flow (government education and mainstream media), controls the emotions. In a democracy the emotionally charged citizens will demand “justice” by punishing the criminal, which is fair, but then take it a step further by punishing the freedom (through legislation) that the criminal abused to commit the crime.

As Benedict LaRosa wrote in Democracy or Republic, Which is it? You punish the abuser of the freedom, not the freedom itself.

There are no rights in a democracy, only privileges. Privileges that can be taken away by 51% of the eligible voters in a direct democracy or 51% of the elected politicians in a representative democracy. In our case here in New Zealand, 62 of the 122 parliamentarians are all that is required for Bills to pass into law.

When the citizens demand a Binding Referendum, they are in fact asking the government to grant them the privilege of voting directly on various issues. This is direct democracy. The very first democracy was the Athenian direct democracy which failed miserably and never tried again for thousands of years! Many argue that direct democracy would be much more efficient with modern technology, but that simply ignores the absurd notion that the majority of one select group, can collectively impose their private law on those who disagree. Nothing is binding in a democracy because there are no rights, only privileges. If the will of the majority wants a binding referendum then it becomes law until the next majority repeals it, in which case it was never binding in the first place. This is the nature of democracy, unrestrained.

How is it fair that 122 politicians whose votes are influenced by various special interest groups can make their private law public law, forcing 4 ¾ Million kiwis to comply, including every kiwi born after the vote?

As kiwis we are encouraged to vote in the general election. One day in every 1095 days the citizens exercise their democratic right to vote for who gets to exercise their democratic right to vote for the next 1094 days!

For the 3 years between elections the citizens complain about lack of representation and the need to be heard. Citizens resort to polls with overwhelming majorities against the Auckland Supercity, against the Anti Smacking Bill and for Binding Referendums...yet the 122 politicians in parliament ignores these polls. Is this not prima facia evidence that the elected representatives are actually representing someone else’s interests?

Because it is unrestrained, anything goes. Bills are passed all day everyday, eventually so many laws are created that we all become criminals even though our behaviour hasn't changed from one day to the next.

However when it suits the agenda of control, the politicians will jump to the aid of any grieving victim who is calling for more restrictive laws. No law will return their loved ones but the new restrictive laws will only serve to help the healing of the victim’s families, but also punish the freedom of all those still alive, including the affected families themselves. In the long run, it is self defeating.

The most common complaint is that whichever party you elect they will often prove to be no different than the last if not worse! The frustration mounts.

Einstein defines insanity as "doing the same thing over again and expecting different results".

How often do we have to keep voting until we work out that we are insane for not realising that the system we are obsessed with fixing, is not even broken. It works exactly as it is designed to work.

Democracy is the illusion of control.
 
To me means mob rule, much like democratic justice but less formalized.


Oh gawd. Read the quote again and consider the meaning more carefully. You've been arguing in favor of democracy, Marx just wanted to use it as a road to get to his final destination, much like other would-be dictators.

First, it was a tongue in cheek reaction. Second, you are confusing Marx with Lenin.
 
there are not enough people educated on the evils of democracy...


So, how does a completely undemocratic society work? People have no say at all in how they are governed. Who decides conflict resolution? And I really don't care what a bunch of slaveowners and aristocratic men thought in the 1700's. Let's stick to the hear and now, and real life, not theory.
 
To me, the phrase 'social justice' embodies a concept, which in practice would be a system which ensures that no one suffers adverse consequences from elements over which he/she has no control.

Medusa put it well when she replied 'humanity'.

A system of social justice, in any society, does not allow children to go hungry/unsheltered/insufficiently clothed/uneducated because their parents are poor/unemployed/lazy/drug addicted, etc.

A system of social justice does not encourage enormous disparity in wealth where there are impoverished sections of the community.

A system of social justice does not allow labour exploitation and subsistence wages while the corporate sector is making record profits.

A system of social justice does not allow the corporate sector to pollute the environment because it is powerful enough to have political clout.

A system of social justice restricts personal freedoms where their exercise adversely affect the rest of society, and a system of social justice does not allow the wealthy and powerful to dictate the conditions of life to the rest of society.

And perhaps most significantly, a system of social justice does not allow people, and their dependents, to suffer because of poor life decisions they may have made.
 
So, how does a completely undemocratic society work? People have no say at all in how they are governed. Who decides conflict resolution? And I really don't care what a bunch of slaveowners and aristocratic men thought in the 1700's. Let's stick to the hear and now, and real life, not theory.

We've been through this already on another thread. People choose their own governance on an individual basis. Commies choose to follow the rules of their commie friends, socialists go with the socialists, etc. No group needs to limit the actions of another unless a very few basic natural rights are infringed upon. These rights are universal in that they are in the best interests of all the groups regardless of their beliefs.
 
And perhaps most significantly, a system of social justice does not allow people, and their dependents, to suffer because of poor life decisions they may have made.

Wow, are you saying the "nanny state" should rule the day?
 
Wow, are you saying the "nanny state" should rule the day?

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.
 
We've been through this already on another thread. People choose their own governance on an individual basis. Commies choose to follow the rules of their commie friends, socialists go with the socialists, etc. No group needs to limit the actions of another unless a very few basic natural rights are infringed upon. These rights are universal in that they are in the best interests of all the groups regardless of their beliefs.

Actually, I didn't get a very convincing answer from your thread, so I am asking the same question to another person who happens to strongly dislike democracy. Maybe Ernst has a better solution that allows for more freedom, peace and prosperity than we have today under our current limited democracies, and hopefully better than your anarchistic police state.

Relevant to this thread, and very interesting, is how an alternative to democracy could also deliver social justice to both the individual and the society he lives in. And should the alternative form of governance even consider what is best for the society and just focus on the individual?
 
Last edited:
better than your anarchistic police state.
: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.
 
: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.

Let's keep this thread and your thread separated. I'll respond to this nonsense in your thread.
 
So, how does a completely undemocratic society work? People have no say at all in how they are governed. Who decides conflict resolution? And I really don't care what a bunch of slaveowners and aristocratic men thought in the 1700's. Let's stick to the hear and now, and real life, not theory.

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.

that is why states have power per the 10th amendment to stop majority rule, if it should rear its ugly head.

in democratic government rights are not secure, because the majority can changes rights wherever they wish, rights are not unalienable.

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
 
Back
Top Bottom