Not justice at all
Liberals talk a great deal about social justice. To the political left, social justice means government being more involved to ensure equality of outcome, usually through redistribution of wealth and status.
The great political movements of the 18th and 19th centuries shifted governance away from kings and tyrants, giving common people more say in how they were governed. But with the advent of Marxism and its cousins communism, socialism and progressivism, Western civilization began voluntarily choosing less freedom in exchange for perceived safety.
How did it happen that so many of us no longer value freedom and instead want to replace it with increased government intrusion and regulation? The answer is envy — and “social justice” is a fancy term for “envy.” We are so jealous of those with more than us — even if they worked harder, took more risks and are smarter than us — that we would rather put ourselves in chains than allow others to have more.
Envy is deadly to individuals and society. With envy, we kill the goose that lays the golden eggs of prosperity and unwittingly destroy the fabric of our civilization.
Social justice is not justice at all. It is oppression with which we imprison ourselves because we are so jealous of others.
The writer was the Republican candidate for the District 8 Allegheny County Council seat in the Nov. 5 election.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Race & society
- Social Security woes
- Wrong on GOP view of Obama
- Laborers’ choice
- Need bus service in West Vandergrift
- AKA joint effort?
- Challenge & media
- More radio woes
- What happened to manners?
- ‘And another thing...’
- Foley & Obama I