Fraud Alert: 'Social Justice' is a hoax

How Prog-Obamunists H8 our Constitution
In Law Legislation, and Liberty: The Mirage of Social Justice (Vol. 2, University of Chicago Press, 1976), Friedrich Hayek explores the concept of “social justice” or distributive justice, which he finds wanting and destructive of any real understanding of justice. Due to its complexity, it is difficult to do justice to Hayek’s argument against the political application of the concept of social justice in a brief article, but attempt to do so I will.

Hayek begins his argument by contrasting the difference between a general rule (as in the Rule of Law) and the public interest, which he defines as a collection of private interests or majority rule. The former must be universally applicable to all citizens, whereas the latter merely implements the preferences of the majority. For example, today American citizens commonly think that the Supreme Court should reach decisions that coincide with the opinions of the majority of the voting public, a view which is reflected in the philosophy of judicial activism and the idea that the Constitution is a “living document” that must reflect the current mores of the citizenry.

Thus, when deciding upon such cases as abortion and affirmative action, the Supreme Court begins to take on the duties of a legislative body, handing down “progressive” decisions in line with contemporary morality, whereas according to the intent of the Founders, the Supreme Court was supposed to only determine whether legislative acts were Constitutional or not and the unenumerated powers to enact social policy were to be the venue of the state legislatures. The Founding Fathers did not consider it to be the Supreme Court’s role to act as a legislative body, reflecting the will of the majority (or in the above cases, an elitist and powerful minority). As James Madison wrote in Federalist Paper, No. 10, “Measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority.”

In Hayek’s view, justice in the Open Society concerned “rules of just conduct,” which he defined as “those end-independent rules which serve the formation of a spontaneous order, in contrast to the end-dependent rules of organization” (p. 31). In other words, in a free society that is not planned and controlled by a central authority, the rules must be fair and equally applicable to all, as in a baseball game, and not be directed towards a preferred outcome, as in picking winners and losers. This is the exact opposite, for example, of the tenets of affirmative action or outcome based education, however compensatory those policies might be.
(from gmsplace.com)

Related video clips:
'Fundamentally transforming the U.S.A.'
'The fundamental flaw of this country'

No comments:

Related Posts with Thumbnails