Social Justice?
quotation>>>In my experience, my leanings toward social/global justice and environmental concerns make me "liberal."<<<
quotation>>>...think that Paul's presentation (and I've listened to hours and hours of it) could benefit from really fleshing out in greater detail the way in which free markets cure social injustices.<<<
I've seen a lot of people (particularly folks from the left) who bring up "social justice" when questioning Ron Paul. This questioning shoud immediately be addressed by asking the questioner as to exactly what social justice is?
"Is social justice protecting against discrimination, and protecting humans who are at a disadvantage?"
"Well, yes of course. "
"Great, then you must be in favor of protecting the unborn who are at an extreme disadvantage when in comes to protections."
I'm not trying to argue in favor or against abortion. I'm only trying to point out that "social justice" is in the eye of the beholder. A white student who is more qualified than other applicants, but is denied admission to a university because of racial discrimination (affirmative action), doesn't get over it by knowing that some sort of social justice was carried out. In fact, I'm sure she doesn't see it as justice of any kind.
We have to be very careful about the words we use and what they mean. Social justice sounds nice, but it is almost always code for "my agenda", and most usually "my liberal/socialist agenda." True social justice is never served by limiting the freedom (social or economic) of others to award advantage or "compensation" to others.
Before explaining Ron Paul's message on his issue, I think it helps to share the story of how Ron Paul has CHOSEN (read: not forced by the government) to provide expensive medical services to poor patients for free or almost free instead of accepting MEDICARE/MEDICAID. Ron Paul's message is very simple. If you give people a chance to to help others, most of the time they will. But how can you expect people to help others when they are forced to hand over anywhere between 40% and 70% percent of their real incomes to governments who spend it (VERY, VERY, VERY, VERY - did I say "very"?-) innefficiently. Let's face it, the government (which by the way is just as subject to corruption as corporations) takes your money by force, takes a cut of it (got to make sure that the Congressional pension plan is funded you know. Oh, and uh Hamas needs some weapons to kill US soldiers. We're gonna fund that. And, now that I think about it, there are three people in Alaska who need a $20M bridge. To where you say? We'll do the asking of questions around here. Are you a terrorist or something?), and whatever pittance remains goes to welfare programs that, BY DESIGN, encourage continued dependence upon the welfare systems.
No one said the free market is perfect, but as sure as I'm voting for Ron Paul, they are proven much better than the alternatives. The truth is, when we "regulate" markets, the costs of their flaws don't disappear. They just move. Anybody who believes that businesses don't just pass costs along to consumers is ignorant. The more the government regulates markets, the more expensive things get for, uh oh, the PEOPLE.
I could go on all day, and night. And, frankly I'd love to, but I have to work tomorrow. I've got a huge welfare state to support.
Ta ta!
Ron just happen to be that guy
