You 'activist' whose wages come from non-profit orgs or non-governmental orgs need to "LET LOOSE" of those MILLIONS THAT YOU HAVE!!!! You are the people that 'hoard' millions of dollars that are donated already by the better off people. Hardworking people have earned their own way thru life. You are as corrupt as the big government depts that KEEP the funding from the people. SHAME ON YOU! Instill the children with morals, self respect and teach them to work hard. They CAN succeed if they want
1) self-righteously calls everyone with higher income than them "greedy", while demanding "the rich" give them more of their money.
2) forgoes individual liberty in the name of "equality for all", except for bureaucrats, who will make more, because they are "the best and the brightest."
3) resents anyone that isn't a minority, woman, disabled person, or gay simply for existing.
4) has a useless humanities degree and can't find decent work.
Your view is outdated. Most people don't see health care as a luxury since it's necessary to ensure good health. In many cases, people need more than just minimal health care. How is a low-income person with brain cancer supposed to pay for surgery? The only reason why the poorest people have any care at all is that they go to ERs and the tab is passed on to the government. Leaving those people without healthcare is inhumane and most people agree that it is an unacceptable option.
Social justice is being born into equal opportunity. Social physics makes this impossible, so social justice must be approximated. A reasonable approximation: tax every individual an equal flat percent on income. Any additional tax is a form of pointed discrimination or theft. Then, give every single individual back an equal amount each month, the richest man included.
@mattrferr Social justice goes much farther than that. Social justice is ensuring fairness for everyone. What you are proposing is not social justice, as it would unfairly benefit people with higher levels of intelligence and better opportunities from the start.
@mikekazik1 Then social justice must be retarded. People are unequal in every aspect and contribute unequally to society. What you are describing would destroy the effectiveness of any economy to innovate. It is strictly contrary to what I would call social physics, perhaps even contrary to common sense.
@mattrferr You are correct, people are unequal in every aspect. The goal of social justice is to provide all people on Earth, despite their ability to contribute to the free market economy, with a humane standard of living (ie, food, shelter, healthcare on a regular basis, high quality education, etc). It is a VERY high standard that can gradually be approached. As the economy becomes more developed, people will have the resources to pursue higher levels of egalitarianism.
@mikekazik1 I appreciate your view, might even agree with it to some extent. What I will never agree to is centrally planned solutions that spend money on behalf of individuals. Spending is like voting and individuals should be free to spend money as they judge.
@mattrferr Centrally planned solutions are the only way to accomplish the level of fairness mandated by social justice. In the American free market economy, people get to keep most of their earnings. What ends up happening is that most people spend it on unnecessary material luxuries/services that other people on Earth don't have access to. People who are firm believers of social justice believe that the collective well-being takes priority over unnecessary materialistic pursuits.
@mikekazik1 You're wrong. The rich invest most their money in capital. Capital produces cheap goods. Without these cheap goods the poor would be screwed. Do the rich have luxuries? Yes. This is how luxuries become affordable to the poor. The rich invest in and buy them first.
Central planning is arrogant. No one can plan an economy. Planning even one sector of an economy will screw it up.
@mattrferr That's somewhat true for the ultra-rich who have millions. But even for them, they have millions in unnecessary stuff like sports cars, swimming pools, and the works. For your everyday rich guy who makes +$100,000 every year, you aren't going to see them investing in new factory equipment. Rather, you will see them buy huge luxury homes, luxury vehicles, expensive vacations, etc. Are those things more important than a base line standard of living for marginalize people?
@mikekazik1 That depends on how baseline is defined, and you clearly believe in progression towards egalitarianism. A man how majors in electrical engineering, learns differential equations, circuits, programming, transforms, and generally tackles every hard subject he possibly deserves compensation if he performs in the workforce.
And yes, he will invest his money. I would say that the innovation and improvement of those luxuries is imperative.
@mattrferr And central planning is not arrogant. It's at the opposite end of arrogance as it takes into account the well-being of marginalized people who would be excluded from the free market system. Who said that the entire economy has to be planned? Only the sectors needed to maintain a base-line standard of living for the marginalized need some planning. Moderate planning would not screw up those sectors.
@mikekazik1 No one is excluded from the free market. By definition a free market must include everyone. Moderate intervention in the economy at the federal level caused the housing crises. Moderate intervention in the economy at the federal level also decreases the value of money and hits the poor hardest. The effects of intervention are often problems not foreseen by planners, and the planned solutions often cause more inefficiencies.
@mattrferr The people excluded from the free market are those who can't support themselves in the system. Don't pretend like you don't know what I mean. The examples you listed are poor, as those government policies never tackled the root causes of the problems. Medicare and medicaid, though they have imperfections, are good examples of programs that aid in solving the healthcare problem. The program solves the problem, which is caused by a lack of financial resources.
@mikekazik1 I view health care as a luxury. To me it's like a super computer. The poor can afford a netbook and a netbook is all they need. A netbook used to be a supercomputer. We don't see the government handing out netbooks but millions can afford them heath care is no different.
@LasagnaIsGood Social justice is an agreement between you and society. If you want to be a part of society you agree to do your part for society. If you don't want to do your part you are free to leave. You don't have to accept the security and protection of society if you don't feel like contributing.
@1Pantikian No one owes anything to society. You forgot to mention that society was created by people pursuing their own goals, whether for profit or charity.Social justice is mob rule, and it provides no protection and security for the 49% and soon for everyone.Social justice is an infringement of civil liberties, and no one signed a contract to do their part for society and I did not choose to let go of my liberties. Oh, and if you hadn't noticed, they are leaving, say hello to outsourcing.
@1Pantikian I'm not an anarchist. I am in favor for the government to do what it was intended to do - govern justice. I support paying taxes for justice, because justice is a collective idea.
And by justice I mean the protection of civil liberties. For example the right to life. property, bear arms, right to refuse unjustified searches etc... . You know the rights you had since you were born, the rights that could only be taken away.
Social justice will always mean injustice for the few.
I believe it can simply mean embracing everyones differences and respecting all as fellow human beings. This should also mean helping them attain as healthy a mind, body, and spirit as they are capable of. Notice, I didn't use the word "equal"
It is because social justice - as its proponents would practice it - is the redistribution of wealth based on arbitrary classifications of human beings into different categories. This is an excuse for totalitarianism. It is EXACTLY what Pol Pot, Mao, and Stalin said they would give to the people.
"what is social justice to you, because we have no fuckin' idea". If you ask 10 people and get ten different answers then it means the word has no meaning.. we have a name for words like that: nonsense.
I guess I do support some type of socialism, I go to work everyday and my dog stays at home and .. well I'm not really sure, I'm at work, so I guess he just does what a dog does when you are not around.. ANYWAY, I supply food, shelter and health coverage, and what ever else my dog needs. The difference between my dog and a Socialist is that my dog is gratefull....
Social Justice is about socialism straight up. All the lovely sweet definitions mean nothing.....its about distribution of wealth. Taking from those who have EARNED a living and saved their money to give to those who had the same opportunities but whine about how bad things are for them so they need social justice......to take from those with....to give to those without.
Social Justice is Breadquanda doing a cartwheel while shitting herself.
Llarthel 4 days ago
You 'activist' whose wages come from non-profit orgs or non-governmental orgs need to "LET LOOSE" of those MILLIONS THAT YOU HAVE!!!! You are the people that 'hoard' millions of dollars that are donated already by the better off people. Hardworking people have earned their own way thru life. You are as corrupt as the big government depts that KEEP the funding from the people. SHAME ON YOU! Instill the children with morals, self respect and teach them to work hard. They CAN succeed if they want
pillzrbad 1 week ago
Social Justice is making "whitey" today suffer for what happened generations ago... SCAM!!!
MrSpemat 2 weeks ago
one who preaches social justice is one who:
1) self-righteously calls everyone with higher income than them "greedy", while demanding "the rich" give them more of their money.
2) forgoes individual liberty in the name of "equality for all", except for bureaucrats, who will make more, because they are "the best and the brightest."
3) resents anyone that isn't a minority, woman, disabled person, or gay simply for existing.
4) has a useless humanities degree and can't find decent work.
UltraProle21 3 weeks ago
Your view is outdated. Most people don't see health care as a luxury since it's necessary to ensure good health. In many cases, people need more than just minimal health care. How is a low-income person with brain cancer supposed to pay for surgery? The only reason why the poorest people have any care at all is that they go to ERs and the tab is passed on to the government. Leaving those people without healthcare is inhumane and most people agree that it is an unacceptable option.
mikekazik1 1 month ago
Social justice is being born into equal opportunity. Social physics makes this impossible, so social justice must be approximated. A reasonable approximation: tax every individual an equal flat percent on income. Any additional tax is a form of pointed discrimination or theft. Then, give every single individual back an equal amount each month, the richest man included.
mattrferr 2 months ago
@mattrferr Social justice goes much farther than that. Social justice is ensuring fairness for everyone. What you are proposing is not social justice, as it would unfairly benefit people with higher levels of intelligence and better opportunities from the start.
mikekazik1 1 month ago
@mikekazik1 Then social justice must be retarded. People are unequal in every aspect and contribute unequally to society. What you are describing would destroy the effectiveness of any economy to innovate. It is strictly contrary to what I would call social physics, perhaps even contrary to common sense.
mattrferr 1 month ago
@mattrferr You are correct, people are unequal in every aspect. The goal of social justice is to provide all people on Earth, despite their ability to contribute to the free market economy, with a humane standard of living (ie, food, shelter, healthcare on a regular basis, high quality education, etc). It is a VERY high standard that can gradually be approached. As the economy becomes more developed, people will have the resources to pursue higher levels of egalitarianism.
mikekazik1 1 month ago
@mikekazik1 I appreciate your view, might even agree with it to some extent. What I will never agree to is centrally planned solutions that spend money on behalf of individuals. Spending is like voting and individuals should be free to spend money as they judge.
mattrferr 1 month ago
@mattrferr Centrally planned solutions are the only way to accomplish the level of fairness mandated by social justice. In the American free market economy, people get to keep most of their earnings. What ends up happening is that most people spend it on unnecessary material luxuries/services that other people on Earth don't have access to. People who are firm believers of social justice believe that the collective well-being takes priority over unnecessary materialistic pursuits.
mikekazik1 1 month ago
@mikekazik1 You're wrong. The rich invest most their money in capital. Capital produces cheap goods. Without these cheap goods the poor would be screwed. Do the rich have luxuries? Yes. This is how luxuries become affordable to the poor. The rich invest in and buy them first.
Central planning is arrogant. No one can plan an economy. Planning even one sector of an economy will screw it up.
mattrferr 1 month ago
@mattrferr That's somewhat true for the ultra-rich who have millions. But even for them, they have millions in unnecessary stuff like sports cars, swimming pools, and the works. For your everyday rich guy who makes +$100,000 every year, you aren't going to see them investing in new factory equipment. Rather, you will see them buy huge luxury homes, luxury vehicles, expensive vacations, etc. Are those things more important than a base line standard of living for marginalize people?
mikekazik1 1 month ago
@mikekazik1 That depends on how baseline is defined, and you clearly believe in progression towards egalitarianism. A man how majors in electrical engineering, learns differential equations, circuits, programming, transforms, and generally tackles every hard subject he possibly deserves compensation if he performs in the workforce.
And yes, he will invest his money. I would say that the innovation and improvement of those luxuries is imperative.
mattrferr 1 month ago
@mattrferr And central planning is not arrogant. It's at the opposite end of arrogance as it takes into account the well-being of marginalized people who would be excluded from the free market system. Who said that the entire economy has to be planned? Only the sectors needed to maintain a base-line standard of living for the marginalized need some planning. Moderate planning would not screw up those sectors.
mikekazik1 1 month ago
@mikekazik1 No one is excluded from the free market. By definition a free market must include everyone. Moderate intervention in the economy at the federal level caused the housing crises. Moderate intervention in the economy at the federal level also decreases the value of money and hits the poor hardest. The effects of intervention are often problems not foreseen by planners, and the planned solutions often cause more inefficiencies.
mattrferr 1 month ago
@mattrferr The people excluded from the free market are those who can't support themselves in the system. Don't pretend like you don't know what I mean. The examples you listed are poor, as those government policies never tackled the root causes of the problems. Medicare and medicaid, though they have imperfections, are good examples of programs that aid in solving the healthcare problem. The program solves the problem, which is caused by a lack of financial resources.
mikekazik1 1 month ago
@mikekazik1 I view health care as a luxury. To me it's like a super computer. The poor can afford a netbook and a netbook is all they need. A netbook used to be a supercomputer. We don't see the government handing out netbooks but millions can afford them heath care is no different.
mattrferr 1 month ago
Social Justice is the access the health care to everyone
josuerodriguez1981 3 months ago
social justice is... forced charity
LasagnaIsGood 3 months ago
@LasagnaIsGood Social justice is an agreement between you and society. If you want to be a part of society you agree to do your part for society. If you don't want to do your part you are free to leave. You don't have to accept the security and protection of society if you don't feel like contributing.
1Pantikian 3 months ago
@1Pantikian No one owes anything to society. You forgot to mention that society was created by people pursuing their own goals, whether for profit or charity.Social justice is mob rule, and it provides no protection and security for the 49% and soon for everyone.Social justice is an infringement of civil liberties, and no one signed a contract to do their part for society and I did not choose to let go of my liberties. Oh, and if you hadn't noticed, they are leaving, say hello to outsourcing.
LasagnaIsGood 3 months ago
@LasagnaIsGood But do you think that you should receive the protection of the military and other state offered protections while not paying taxes?
1Pantikian 3 months ago
@1Pantikian I'm not an anarchist. I am in favor for the government to do what it was intended to do - govern justice. I support paying taxes for justice, because justice is a collective idea.
And by justice I mean the protection of civil liberties. For example the right to life. property, bear arms, right to refuse unjustified searches etc... . You know the rights you had since you were born, the rights that could only be taken away.
Social justice will always mean injustice for the few.
LasagnaIsGood 3 months ago
@LasagnaIsGood You're a libertarian :)
mattrferr 2 months ago
Writing a research paper and stumbled upon this. Love you Jean Michelle, what a nice surprise!
<3 Victoria Azzopardi
victoriainitaly 3 months ago
There is NO SUCH THING as SOCIAL Justice, only JUSTICE. And noboby in this video seems to have ANY IDEA what that is.
sgapplebee 4 months ago
I believe it can simply mean embracing everyones differences and respecting all as fellow human beings. This should also mean helping them attain as healthy a mind, body, and spirit as they are capable of. Notice, I didn't use the word "equal"
Chillax everybody. :)
courierdude 5 months ago
Social justice is socialism.... period.
TeaPartyVeteran 5 months ago
@TeaPartyVeteran
Exactly. It is socialism.
It is because social justice - as its proponents would practice it - is the redistribution of wealth based on arbitrary classifications of human beings into different categories. This is an excuse for totalitarianism. It is EXACTLY what Pol Pot, Mao, and Stalin said they would give to the people.
yukiomishima246 4 months ago
"what is social justice to you, because we have no fuckin' idea". If you ask 10 people and get ten different answers then it means the word has no meaning.. we have a name for words like that: nonsense.
quantumG 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I guess I do support some type of socialism, I go to work everyday and my dog stays at home and .. well I'm not really sure, I'm at work, so I guess he just does what a dog does when you are not around.. ANYWAY, I supply food, shelter and health coverage, and what ever else my dog needs. The difference between my dog and a Socialist is that my dog is gratefull....
go2mikerenzi 6 months ago
SOCIAL JUSTICE IS:
1.) Theft. Taking from one to give to another
2.) Presuming you're right because a majority says so.
3.) Anti-liberty
Jidster01 1 year ago 2
Social Justice is about socialism straight up. All the lovely sweet definitions mean nothing.....its about distribution of wealth. Taking from those who have EARNED a living and saved their money to give to those who had the same opportunities but whine about how bad things are for them so they need social justice......to take from those with....to give to those without.
SOCIALISM.
srvblueslvr 1 year ago
Social Justice is acts 31-15 read it!
Forrestjake09 1 year ago
@Forrestjake09 Sorry Charlie Acts dont have 31 chapters
JewCommunist 1 year ago
Social Justice is, wrong. Equal justice is the only fair way to set people free.
birdhunter67 1 year ago 2
Social Justice = Blaming white people for the problems of all minorities and then having white people give back what they have "stolen" from them.
Social Justice = White guilt
elvandrik 1 year ago 3
Social Justice is...
code word for Nazism and communism.
as well as racism against white people. (ask reverend wright)
slikkwon 1 year ago
@slikkwon no your so wrong who are you. social justice isnt racism against white people its loving your neighbor as yourself black or white
Forrestjake09 1 year ago
@Forrestjake09
keep the spirit alive...
slikkwon 1 year ago