Cristok wrote:Dont believe in social justice? Thats crazy talk. Economics is just another way to describe human behavior. Call it whatever you like, but we are social and emotional beings and even when you get millions of us clustered together we remain such.
Absolutely You've struck right at the heart of my issue with 'social justice'; terminology. Economics is a social science, no doubt. 'Social justice' however is a vague pseudo-concept bandied about essentially for self-vindication. It has a flexible definition depending on what it means to the user of the word. You ask a libertarian what social justice is, and they will talk about civil liberties and freedom from coercive force. You ask a communist, and they will instead discuss equality of opportunity and an open society.
So why use such an inconsistent term? Because it confers righteousness to one's own ideaology through it's use. If you describe your agenda as social 'justice' to oppose it would be unjust. Thus I have a problem with the word. Moreover, the word itself is used far more by left wing statists than anyone else, and I reject the implicit notion that opposition to their ideology constituted social injustice.
You may not like govornment, but if you have millions of humans, or even 300 humans, you.will.have.government. You may not call it govornment. You may find some other word for it, but the fact remains that we organize our selves and compromise our interests in this way and we always have and we always will.
I can agree with this- I would say it is where I most come into conflict with left-anarchists. They seem to think a word can exist without authority. I would disagree that there specificlly has to be 'government', as in an organisation based solely around monopolising the provision of force, coercion, and authoritatively acting as society's arbiter. However, authority and social organisation are staples of human social groups, and I very much doubt we could exist without it. That said, authority doesn't have to be coercive. It can be consensual. If you get a job, you boss has nominal authority over you during work hours. However you agree to this on the taking of the job, and can arrange the terms and limits of this authority. Plus, if you don't like it, you can quit, unionise, renogotiate, or whatever else.
I dont blame some ethereal 'govt/corporate/clusterfuck of mysterious interests' for the 'War on Drugs'. I blame the people of the United States for not being outraged at injustice.
I disagree. While certainly mass public outrage can effect results in government, the public isn't responsible for the actions of the government simply because they could stop them. The war on drugs is very much a product of the government of the United States of America. The people didn't vote the initiative in via referendum. The people didn't sign an executive order allowing the CIA to reap profits off 'confiscated goods' from drug cartels in south america ultimately leading to an influx of USA taxpayer funded crack cocaine. The people are a mix of apathetic and gullible. People either know the war on drugs is BS but won't do much beyond try to vote for legalisation if and when the spectacularly narrow system of democratic illusory choice offers them such a cantidate- or they think drugs are bad and rightly illegal because that is what the government has been saying for several decades.
In fact I blame Therean for example for not being outraged that I can, and have been arrested, for smoking herb and not considering it a social imperative of justice that it should be stopped until some economic incentive makes it so. Wrong is wrong! Injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere! -Insert hippie ass protest chant here-!
Should!=is. I think it is unjust that you and so many others have been arrested, incarcerated, or murdered by the state for partaking of some pleasant chemical abuse of your own body. That's actual justice, though, not social justice. It is actually unjust to prosecute people for 'victimless crimes'. I do think it should stopped. However I expect that it is the vast economic incentives for it to stop that will win out in the end. It's speculation, not my suggestion of the ideal outcome. Sure it'd be great if the people rose up in protest tomorrow for the right to use recreational drugs, and the goverment listened to them and changed the law. However, more often than not, it is money that effects results in politics.
Honestly I'm surprised the War on Drugs persists, especially given the current financial dire straits the USA is in. Imagine if you quit spending money on the war on drugs, legalised their sale, and slapped a 300% tax on over-the-counter sales (As is traditional for goods of inelastic demand, like petrol, alcohol, cigarettes, and pharmaceuticals- not actually a suggestion I'd principally endorse). That'd be a revenue raiser. Imagine purging the prisons of everyone serving a sentence for non-violent drug-related charges. Anyhow, your best bet at the moment would be registering as republican and voting for Ron Paul in the Primaries.
I also love this discussion! Keep it coming until the govt/Abric shuts us down!
Cheers, likewise.
