Do You Believe Social Justice Is Good? My Thoughts from a Christian Perspective

[JackRT]

To be sure, the system (Socialism) is not based upon voluntarism. It depends upon and enforces compliance, that's all. And that's different. Otherwise, Socialism cannot function.

To be sure, the system (Capitalism) is not based upon voluntarism. It depends upon and enforces compliance, that's all. And that's different. Otherwise, Capitalism cannot function.

 

[Albion]

To be sure, the system (Capitalism) is not based upon voluntarism. It depends upon and enforces compliance, that's all.

We know who does the enforcement in a Socialist system. Who is it, do you imagine, that is doing the enforcing (and stifling voluntarism?) in a "Capitalist" system?

 

[Dryskale]

We know who does the enforcement in a Socialist system. Who is it, do you imagine, that is doing the enforcing (and stifling voluntarism?) in a "Capitalist" system?

The same as a socialist system, the government or more specific the court system. Socialiam/Capitalism are economic models not government models. Many of the failed Socialist/communist systems took a heavey handed government approach. While countries that went the Social Democracy rout faired way better because markets were left to be more open.

 

[Albion]

The same as a socialist system, the government or more specific the court system.

Oh no. When we compare governmental systems, we find that, well, all governments pass laws and enforce them. It's the degree of control that we are discussing.

 

[Dryskale]

Oh no. When we compare governmental systems, we find that, well, all governments pass laws and enforce them. It's the degree of control that we are discussing.

Yeah, that's why I brought up the difference in government styles such as Vanguards ( China, North Korea, USSR) and Social Democracies (Norway, Sweden, Germany) Social Democracies leave more up to the Market than a Vanguard which is a complete top down aproach.

 

[Monksailor]

In the video, I discuss my problems with Social Justice and leftism in general that make it a poisonous philosophy from a Christian perspective. Do you agree with my thoughts, and do you think Social Justice is a good or a bad thing?

This is a very good presentation. It was well-prepared, concise, well-spoken with very appropriate pauses in meter, comprehensive and cohesive. However, it sounded to me that with your conclusion of point #1 you were saying that the end justifies the means. Since it is a political democratic machine, at least in the USA, which determines the "end" I do not think it will ever arrive at the end/individual as the political machine is only interested in pleasing voting majorities (groups/collectives) for the most part. It would be impossible to categorize divisively in a legislative manner, at least in a democracy, down to the individual as the house of reps would have to contain all of the citizens of the US, would it not? Now if it were a socialist or communist government, I believe that they COULD by ordering or social-engineering what the "individual" was supposed to be; but in my opinion, social justice is not possible under those government structures as already shown in the world so social justice, other than an appealing ploy or pretense, would not even be an issue.

On point #2, I am one of those you mention who do not seek social power at all. I am the type who sees the best qualified person to compete against is one's self; none other qualifies so well, fairly, anyway. What is this with enjoying being able to tell others what to do??? It only means that you are foolish enough to assume responsibility for all of the errors and failures of other people IN ADDITION for your own to me. I never understood that. I have a college degree with a 3.96 agpa and am a person of courage and other attributes which would seem to lend me being a good leader but I have never cared to do so or had such ambitions. I HAVE been approached several times for such but when I was not willing to promise perfection, in unreasonable time quotas and/or with unsafe or illegal working conditions or not promising total commitment to them excluding God's ways and ethical or otherwise moral standards, I became unattractive and they left me alone. There ARE plenty out there who would do almost anything just to be able to say that they lorded over others. It did not advance me as far up the pay scale as others but I believe that I had greater peace and joy with my Lord than if I had accepted those offers/"opportunities". Along with that, I should say that there are a LOT out there who have no business whatsoever being in the leadership positions which they hold. Equalizing social power is a very dangerous thing to do. MANY, including those who appear as excellent candidates, "need not apply."

On #3, I believe that that is the fundamental crux of Carl Marx and other communistic social engineers, if I remember correctly. Russia and others around the world have and are proving how foolish that philosophy or socio-economic position is. Some people are VERY keen at making much out of little, as in the parable shared. They can become great managers of great wealth and great contributors towards great causes in a multitude of locations serving many purposes and all hugely benefiting mankind all over the world. Our President is that kind of person and knowing this and how he must have had a LOT of experience already with "foreign relations" and negotiating, I voted for him. Then there others, many, many others who win the lottery or Hollywood stars or famous sport stars in millions of dollars which if just put in the bank with small simple interest could have lived a lifetime in luxury who blow it all in a VERY short period of time, and NEVER recover anything more than the life that they had before, if they are lucky. I DO believe that there should be incentives, just as God gave, for those who can manage money well who will invest their wealth in humanities' benefit as opposed to just helping themselves to all that they can get for themselves.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Yeah, that's why I brought up the difference in government styles such as Vanguards ( China, North Korea, USSR) and Social Democracies (Norway, Sweden, Germany) Social Democracies leave more up to the Market than a Vanguard which is a complete top down aproach.

I find it telling that when American liberals hear the word "socialism", the first thing they think of is the Nordic model while when American conservatives hear the word "socialism", the first thing they think of is Venezuela.

There's really no ending to this post so I'll finish it off by saying "big juicy hamburger".

 

[Dryskale]

I find it telling that when American liberals hear the word "socialism", the first thing they think of is the Nordic model while when American conservatives hear the word "socialism", the first thing they think of is Venezuela.

There's really no ending to this post so I'll finish it off by saying "big juicy hamburger".

What frustrates me is when I point out I know the difference between a social Democracy and a Vanguard state, I get painted as a typical American Liberal. Personally when I think full on Socialism I think of worker owned cooperatives with a democratic managerial structure. Then again, the original OP talked specifically about "the left" so anything from milk toast Democratic centrists to Tankies, and anarcho syndicalists could be wrapped up in that mess.

 

[thecolorsblend]

What frustrates me is when I point out I know the difference between a social Democracy and a Vanguard state, I get painted as a typical American Liberal. Personally when I think full on Socialism I think of worker owned cooperatives with a democratic managerial structure. Then again, the original OP talked specifically about "the left" so anything from milk toast Democratic centrists to Tankies, and anarcho syndicalists could be wrapped up in that mess.

I can understand that. To be fair though, the American left and the American right are more alienated from each other in more ways with a higher number of camps and diverging viewpoints than ever before. A lot of Republican voters still haven't accepted that their party has changed so it's asking a bit much for them to understand the Democrats. And the same can be said of the Democrats, some of whom still don't seem to understand even now that President Trump is not George Dubya II.

 

[Llewelyn Stevenson]

Do you not vote freely in the country in which you live?

No, it is legally binding to vote, and a huge bias is created by preference votes, which are administered by party bargaining and have noting to do with my vote.

I vote Christian democrats, I get left wing secular Liberal/National government that hates Christians and will have nothing to do with them.

 

[KingdomInTheCulture]

As Jesus taught it, the commands don't seem to be very difficult. Rather simplistic and straightforward. If that's social justice, it's good. Seems like people have developed upon that to the point where it must be accomplished on some national level and to the satisfaction of whoever, I haven't got the faintest idea. Keep it simple. Jesus spoke to individuals. His whole teaching ministry is directed right at individual people. He said, we all should be good people in that we ought to be furthering the kingdom of God through our personal grace toward others. Not a hard thing. I am not indignant because there is a selfish millionaire somewhere out there. Doesn't impact any expression of my grace toward others or anyone else toward me. I'll let God deal with that.

Exactly. We are commanded to honor God and do what is right, but we should not necessarily use the government to force people to also do what is right.

 

[KingdomInTheCulture]

You freely vote for the model of government, including the socialist model. Enforcing compliance is simply a practical measure - we all know it would not work to ask people to "mail in a check".

That is why democracy is fundamentally immoral. Democracy results in the majority eradicating the rights of the minority. That is why the US was wisely designed as a republic instead.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Exactly. We are commanded to honor God and do what is right, but we should not necessarily use the government to force people to also do what is right.

So abolish the truancy laws.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

That is why democracy is fundamentally immoral. Democracy results in the majority eradicating the rights of the minority. That is why the US was wisely designed as a republic instead.

When Franklin warned, "if you can keep it", he implied personal responsibility, which is badly needed but sadly lacking.

 

[expos4ever]

That is why democracy is fundamentally immoral. Democracy results in the majority eradicating the rights of the minority.

What country do you live in? Here in Canada - a democracy - rights of minorities are protected.

 

[expos4ever]

No, it is legally binding to vote,....

What is your point? My point is when people in a free country go to the ballot and vote for a socialist economic model, no one is holding a gun to their heads.

 

[KingdomInTheCulture]

What country do you live in? Here in Canada - a democracy - rights of minorities are protected.

Sorry for not mentioning that bit of context. I am in the US where we are a republic.

 

[Llewelyn Stevenson]

What is your point? My point is when people in a free country go to the ballot and vote for a socialist economic model, no one is holding a gun to their heads.

A fine, and or possible imprisonment may not seem as dramatic to you as "holding a gun to their heads" but I do not see such a large difference.

My point is, the ballot means very little when the socialist economic model set up by those in government guarantees that the choices are limited to only one out of two. That is realistically the way it is in Australia. "Oh, you can vote for anyone you like, but we will ultimately get your vote."

 

[Dryskale]

A fine, and or possible imprisonment may not seem as dramatic to you as "holding a gun to their heads" but I do not see such a large difference.

My point is, the ballot means very little when the socialist economic model set up by those in government guarantees that the choices are limited to only one out of two. That is realistically the way it is in Australia. "Oh, you can vote for anyone you like, but we will ultimately get your vote."

This has nothing to do with an economic model, which is what socialism is. Australia is a social democracy, not a socialist. If you have a problem with the mandatory voting policy, campaign or donate time and/or money to campaigns to get it removed.

 

[Dryskale]

A fine, and or possible imprisonment may not seem as dramatic to you as "holding a gun to their heads" but I do not see such a large difference.

My point is, the ballot means very little when the socialist economic model set up by those in government guarantees that the choices are limited to only one out of two. That is realistically the way it is in Australia. "Oh, you can vote for anyone you like, but we will ultimately get your vote."

Plus realiaticly the US isn't all that different politically. We have 2 major parties with an either or scenario.

If you dont care for labor, vote liberal or National.