- "My definition of social justice: I keep what I earn and you keep what you earn. Do you disagree?…how much of what I earn belongs to you—and why?"
- "If one person has a right to something he did not earn, of necessity it requires that another person not have a right to something that he did earn."
- "Nothing in our Constitution suggests that government is a grantor of rights. Instead, government is a protector of rights.
- "There is no moral argument that justifies using the coercive powers of government to force one person to bear the expense of taking care of another."
- "Government has no resources of its own…government spending is no less than the confiscation of one person’s property to give it to another to whom it does not belong."
- "We don’t have a natural right to take the property of one person to give to another; therefore, we cannot legitimately delegate such authority to government."
- "Exercise of a right by one person does not diminish those held by another."
- "No matter how worthy the cause, it is robbery, theft, and injustice to confiscate the property of one person and give it to another to whom it does not belong."
- "The better I serve my fellow man…the greater my claim on the goods my fellow man produces. That’s the morality of the market."
- "The act of reaching into one’s own pockets to help a fellow man in need is praiseworthy and laudable. Reaching into someone else’s pocket is despicable."
Friday, 23 May 2025
Walter Williams on social justice
The late great Walter Williams's thoughts on property, rights and justice are ideal on post-Budget morning:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I would rephrase the first point, to say that's my definition of 'justice'. Not social justice. The insertion of the word 'social' is intended to define a new type of alleged justice that demands equality of outcome regardless of differences in individual ability. Rather than trying to redefine the meaning of 'social justice', I think we should just say that 'social justice' is unjust.
To add further to what I just said. Some might say this is just semantics, but I think it's much more. Firstly, because when you have a term that's been created by the left to push their socialist agenda, it's unlikely you'll convince a majority to change their definition to something better. Secondly, even using the term in the context of your own definition implicitly concedes there's a 'social' (or collective) element to justice, when in reality the proper focus should be on individuals rather than collectives. Better off to let them keep their definition, and instead show why it's an anti-concept that gets in the way of real justice.
Post a Comment