It is tempting to blame the rich for social injustice.
It is common to hear that the 1% richest people in the world attained their wealth at the expense of the 99% poorer.
In reality, things are much more complicated than that, but can be simplified into one sentence:
The filthy rich are so rich because the conditions that exist allow them to become so rich. In turn, such conditions exist because government allows them to exist or because it created them itself.
What conditions are those that allow the super rich to be rich?
In many cases, rich people actually earned a living and got where they are because of their ingenuity and hard work. In other cases, it is a combination of factors that allow the mega wealthy to be where they are today.
Social justice warriors often cite capitalism as the evil behind inequality, but they understand very little about capitalism. They don’t even know that capitalism hasn’t been applied anywhere for at least 100 years.
They don’t know what social justice is, what it entails or how they themselves would achieve it. They think it is just a matter of throwing cash around and that money will create justice all by itself.
So, let’s define what social justice is and what is not.
By its own definition, social justice is not a right or the sum of rights. However, when asked about it, that is exactly what people believe it is: The right to this, the right to that.
Social justice is: A concept of fair and just relations between the individual and society. This is measured by the explicit and tacit terms for the distribution of wealth, opportunities for personal activity, and social privileges.
As you can see, it doesn’t speak about rights of any kind. It is more about having the conditions for equal opportunities based mainly on distributing or redistributing wealth by force and providing everyone with the same privileges. It is about privileges, not rights.
When talking about social justice, people often confuse equality with equity. Politicians often promote equality for all as a way to appear palatable to voters. Left-leaning politicians very often promise redistribution of wealth to folks in exchange for their vote.
Women’s groups always call for equality of gender under the law when it comes to compensation – equal pay for equal work – no matter the other conditions that surround a man or a woman’s career.
Many women groups want pay equality solely based on what they call gender equality, leaving behind all other qualities of a man or a woman, or the lack thereof.
Social justice and gender equality, among other made-up concepts, are thrown into the air when interest groups desire to find rights where they don’t exist.
The principle of social justice, as explained above is based on the idea that money and property do not belong to anyone, and that government must have the power to take property from someone to give it to someone else.
Meanwhile, gender equality intends to force society to accept that women should earn the same as men regardless of all other past and present conditions. That is, for the simple fact of being women.
In both cases, equality is not something that is sought, but something that is forced. Social justice warriors and gender equality activists cannot understand or do not want to understand that social justice, as defined above, is in reality institutionalized theft.
Gender equality promoters as defined above, do not understand that using the power of the State to legislate or force equal pay for equal work is equivalent to enabling and legitimizing the State to take possession of people and their property.
As explained by Jeff Duncan in his 2017 TED Talk, perhaps what society needs is equity more than equality.
Duncan uses a very simple example to make a difference between equality and equity so people are able to reflect on both terms.
He uses his twin sons to illustrate it. One of his sons is always thirsty, while the other is always hungry.
In their case, equality would be something like providing both of them the same amount of water to drink, or the same amount of food to eat. Equity would be more about providing what each of them needs at any given moment of their lives.
The problem today is lack of equity, not lack of equality. This is perhaps why, despite producing tons of food, there are still billions of people suffering from hunger and malnutrition, or why despite having a lot of wealth, there are still billions of people living in extreme poverty, or why modern socialized medicine is a failure.
There isn’t a perfect cake recipe for all, because we are all different, not equal. We aren’t born equal as many people claim. We are all born different, with different qualities and in different circumstances, and it is precisely those differences what government mandated medicine, wealth redistribution and gender equality cannot address.
If anyone really believed in social justice, or social equity, and if those in favor of social equity took into account the way governments have taken control of people’s lives for centuries, or perhaps millennia, it would be easy to determine that government is not the most adequate mechanism to achieve that social equity that people want.
In fact, after carrying out an objective analysis – assuming people had the ability to leave ideology, religion and politics aside for a moment – about the way government conducted itself over hundreds of years, it would be clear that the State is the least adequate tool to seek social equity.
For people who conducted that analysis, it would be clear, almost immediately, that the State is the biggest obstacle, because the government, the State, is a decadent being, poised to use force and coercion for the sole purpose of remaining alive, not for providing social equity.
Today, the government is institutionalized violence, not justice or equity. Asking the government to be the spine of an equitable society would be equivalent to asking a stone to provide water.
As many readers suspect, it is difficult to imagine how government could be reformed and its hunger for power and control be tamed. And no, We The People are no longer the government. So, although it is important to remain honest and fair as individuals, that alone won’t be enough to reform government.
If government is force, corruption and violence, it is not through government that we can achieve justice or equity; and if government cannot be reformed, another tool is necessary to achieve social equity.
How do we know government’s force, corruption and violence are the main obstacles to equity and justice?
It is government the one that allowed corporations to be treated as individuals.
It is government that agreed that a corporation can lobby for privileges as you would.
Therefore, in the battle of interests, the richest lobby is the most influential and the most powerful one as well.
No single individual, and in many cases, not even large groups of individuals can’t even begin to compete with the lobbying power of a corporation.
Corporate corruption and government corruption are too big to be dealt with. Yet, it is corruption what impairs society from becoming equitable.
Corruption is the worst enemy of social equity.