What's Right About Social Justice - Learn Liberty 

As a not hard core anything, welcome! I'd say this isn't exactly the "other side," but I'm glad you're checking in with us to see why we'd believe what we do.

Me too

Injustice* but yes trying to create equality of outcome disregards the responsibility required of the individual. Equality of opportunity is typically seen as racist to these social justice folks.

I think there is a third option, at least as SJWs conceive of justice: that "social justice" refers to a subset of justice. By way of analogy, one might talk about "commercial justice" and state that it is unjust to deliberately breach contracts you have voluntarily entered into, and that this form of injustice is a commercial injustice-whereas, for example, murder is an example of a non-commercial injustice (when not done in exchange for anything).

I don't believe there is such a thing as social justice. Just as another form of socialism.

@@jonaskoelker But ironically, since social justice disregards individual Justice and responsibility in favor of "group Justice" this becomes Injustice and is not related to real Justice; we should talk about Justice within societies if we are referring to actual Justice, not "social justice" which is really just a type of anti-justice.

vimeo.com/4041228 Watch and learn

Is this the same channel that introduced me to Milton Friedman?

Nope.

@@Beliathon nope.

@@jebremocampo9194 ...why would you ask another human being that? Such a stupid way to phrase a question to ask on the internet "buhhh did i have a ham sandwich yesterday?" HOW IN THE F is anyone supposed to answer that?

Really well said

Adam Belnap For some there are other metrics of well-being than freedom.

+Dent Correct, and there are names for such people. Tyrants, and such.

Anyone who thinks he represents the greater good is too egotistical to actually do the job. Pigeon holing people into groups such as " the poor " denies their individuality.

​@@mattwavle In order to have security/safety you must trade away some of your freedom. It's a balancing act where too much freedom means too little safety and vice-versa. The correct answer to "How much" of each varies from person to person and place to place. You don't have to be a tyrant to put up a sign that says "No trespassing."

@@Kryptnyt freedom over "safety"

When slavery existed in the USA, the European businessmen pointed out that wages were better than slavery because the employer was not responsible for the upkeep of the wage earner.

@@brucehitchcock3869 You are correct.

The idea that markets CAN ever be completely free is erroneous. And for pretty much the same reason that anarchy is unsustainable. In both cases, the conditions are highly unstable. Keep in mind, that no matter what, gangs are going to form that you will have to deal with. Anarchy is unsustainable because it takes a government to prohibit a government. The question is, what kind of gangs do we want to allow? Ones that we have some input into (and consequently, so does everyone else)? Or authoritarian and/or totalitarian ones that we have no say in whatsoever? Exclusive gangs or inclusive ones? Why should economic gangs be acceptable but political or social ones not? SOME kind of gang or gangs are going to take charge, there's no way around it. The founders thought one way to solve this problem is to configure the rules for a couple of allowed gangs that can be set at each others throat to keep each other in check. Well, it wasn't a bad idea but the modern form of it leaves a lot to be desired. But a totally out-of-balance, inequitable societal structure is volatile, as much as you might like the free market to be in charge, it has no mechanism to protect itself from gang efforts to subvert it, and a government designed to do so is just another gang you have to deal with. If enough of the disadvantaged are unhappy, the system will come crashing down at some point, so it's best to make sure there are mechanisms in place to avoid that-- if they're not working very well, see what you can do to improve them, just criticizing them is not particularly helpful...

Syncopator No one's talking about anarchism. Free markets are not like anarchism. Just because you may not know how free markets work doesn't make them unstable (what does that even mean)? Inequitable societal structures aren't volatile, they're inequitable. Free markets are the opposite of inequitable.

forwwater Free markets are like anarchism in that they have no built-in mechanism to protect themselves against the intervention of government. That's just what governments do-- they intervene, and where there is none there's nothing to keep one from forming in the vacuum. Why do you suppose there has never been a free market system in reality that anyone can point to? For the same reason you can't do that with an anarchy-- the systems are UNSTABLE. So unstable in fact, that no one has ever been able to form one much less sustain one.

Syncopator The market is an economic system, not a political system, and is nothing like government or anarchy. The market is just the natural social activity of people trading goods. Now, the market can only exist where social contracts are upheld, namely the right to possession. Government, whether it's Democracy or Anarchism, is responsible for ensuring that contract. Some other regulations are also necessary (e.g. pollution fees), but not so many that the market can't move (reference Milton Friedman's speeches for details). A free market can exist, it just needs to lose the fat that goes beyond the basic tenants of society.

so you want a complete freedom to do whatever hell you want to do in your business? this is not civilization; this is barbarism. free market is barbarism.

+shock80ey Glad you like them! If we could cover any topic or question, what would you like to see us do?

+Learn Liberty A rational debate between two consistent libertarians, one pro-life and the other pro-abortion

+Learn Liberty An honest debate between those who conclude that asking the gov't for a license is tyranny, and those who conclude that including a marriage license for same-sex relationship somehow equals freedom. -- Why is expanding the qualifications for a gov't license somehow a pro-libertarian issue?

+Learn Liberty A quick study on Polycentric Law and other things that the market could do better, that the State is currently doing.

LOL nice try dude. But in reality libertarians have alot to learn from social justice warriors like me

Mao Zedong is rolling in his grave right now. But hey, at least he deserves it.

So dont attempt to help? Ok ,I get it .

Exactly, Education is central to this but often this is one of the worst run systems in most government. So at the end of the 12 years you end up with unskilled/ unemployable people who have the same expectations for income as skilled persons because of political rhetoric. So at the end because of this fundamental failure the knee heck reaction to solicit votes is to lower education standards that create an illusion of success. Then push policies that aren't merit based in pretending to help people, minimum wage also get advocated for as if it will increases the overall employee income while it only helps the few that remain employed.

He is trying to separate moral from practical arguments. Libertarians believe that limited government and market based approaches are both more moral and more practical. He want's to discuss the moral argument here, not the practical one in an effort to defeat the leftist arguments in support of social justice.

If you start it with "suppose I'm right" no conclusion arises. The argument doesn't work backwards.

***** You have a point, Capitalism fails as a system of social provision for a range of reasons. If a free market is one free of public oversight the only area I can imagine it working might be in luxury goods. The notion that ought to abdicate political choice ruled by the laws of chance so that core human needs may be leveraged for a profit is a recipe for organized crime not political liberty.

Christopher Kokenge Would it seem plausible to you that Americans are less prone toward violence historically than Somalians as a result of the influence of White Anglo Saxon Protestants on the development of cultural values and institutions in the US, say the free-market and the nuclear family for examples? Would you agree that Americans are characteristically more disciplined and responsible on the whole than those from cultures south of the Equator generally speaking?

***** As your post suggests, perhaps the free market does not represent an unqualified good for the working majority who live under it, hence the common good might require that the majority of citizens be permitted to exercise the right to political will over the market? The contention of Libertarians that democracy is somehow a threat to liberty functions rhetorically to elevate the free market as a substitute while elevating the economy to the status of a natural force possessing the salient features of a deity empowered by transcendent wisdom and goodness to guide the course of human affairs. Seen in its own antidemocratic terms it seems to me that Libertarian economics functions as another dissembling philosophical cover for the revival of 19th century Social Darwinism

vimeo.com/4041228 Watch and learn

So saying that a slave is underprivileged because they don't have freedom is not correct ? Are N Koreans free ? It's interesting that so called libertarians fought to end slavery are now against BLM . Why?

+Derek Magill Why shouldn't it?

@Anchor , Don't beg the question , speak the answer if you have any ? I have an answer for you , it SHOULD'NT because they have YET to show or produce any value.

Archsider Arc I meant to be neutral. We've seen bad things happen with eugenics. There's nothing wrong with a system that grants improvements in social mobility.

Archsider Arc I meant to be neutral. We've seen bad things happen with eugenics. There's nothing wrong with a system that grants improvements in social mobility.

Anchor Senjaro How ironic it is though, the very system(govt) that claims to "grants improvements in social mobility." is the one that produced and will produce eugenic movements.