August 15, 2016
What’s worse, justice appears to be a zero-sum game. It always seems to come at someone else’s expense. Due to some dumb sense of righteous retribution for American slavery”which Asians had no part in”modern Asian students must surrender 450 SAT points to receive the same consideration as a black student for admission to Harvard.
In most cases, I suspect that black students would consider that to be socially just, while Asian students would deem it a grievous injustice. For the most part, social justice depends on whether you’re throwing the punch or getting hit by it.
The oft-chanted mantra “No justice, no peace!” carries an implied threat. If you don’t give us justice as we define it”and you don’t even get a right to define it, because you’ve been designated as the perpetrator of injustice”we will burn your whole city down. That’s probably why MLK posited an either/or selection between “social justice” and rioting.
It is no accident that the loudest proponents of “social justice” are either willing dupes or outright beneficiaries of unchecked government power. According to a 2006 statement by the United Nations Division for Social Policy:
Social justice is not possible without strong and coherent redistributive policies conceived and implemented by public agencies.
Friedrich Hayek, who called social justice a “mirage,” claimed that its end game was “a government with totalitarian powers.”
In a dystopian nightmare fantasy, I imagine myself standing before a rabid crowd of social justice warriors, barking at the subliterate, brainwashed throngs through a megaphone:
“What do we want?”
“When do we want it?”
“Exactly how would you measure ‘justice’?”
“How much justice is enough?”
“So why don’t you all get jobs, quit eating my taxes for breakfast, and shut the hell up?”
[rioting and looting commence]