Comments on: Justice versus Social Justice

By: Inquisitor

Inquisitor — Sun, 20 Nov 2011 03:33:36 +0000

“Since, we can’t let people just die on the sidewalk.”

Who is “we”? Why would they die on the sidewalk?

“We have to look at where we are, such that back long time ago, medical care was not as ubiquious as it is now. So, is health care a basic right?”

Why would it be? Why is someone else providing you a good an innate right?

By: alkane benzene

alkane benzene — Sat, 19 Nov 2011 23:15:56 +0000

Social Justice and Universial Health Care.
By your definition, Universal Health Care, requiring everyone to have, is in effect an “injustice.” There is an issue here, such that as it stands, without requiring everyone to have, then the those that are paying for it, are paying for those that do not have it. Since, we can’t let people just die on the sidewalk.
So, as Madison would say, government has to be Blind. It is not, so we are at a cross roads, on really what is an individuals innate rights? We have to look at where we are, such that back long time ago, medical care was not as ubiquious as it is now. So, is health care a basic right?
Just how does justice now work?

By: Inquisitor

Inquisitor — Sat, 19 Nov 2011 16:21:15 +0000

Actually positive rights are on a horribly weak basis. If you are not convinced, read Anton de Jasay’s The State, as he dissolves the case for positive rights and the state based on utilitarian and deontological grounds as well as intuitionist (though I think intuitionism is a terrible moral theory in its own right.) The difference is that, like Keynesianism, arguments for them often -sound- sophisticated and/or strong, but a lot of them rely on strings of conceptual ambiguities/nonsense/outright lies/contradictions. Negative rights can mostly be argued for via epistemologically routed arguments that place the burden of proof on statists to make the case for their “rights” (which apparently are a right to everything under the sun), and/or expose contradictions in their denial.

By: Inquisitor

Inquisitor — Sat, 19 Nov 2011 16:15:43 +0000

“progress that entails undoing the “progressive” political redefinition (or better, mis-definition) of justice.”

Lets call it what it is – regressive.

By: Anthony

Anthony — Sat, 19 Nov 2011 04:55:36 +0000

“So individuals have a right to Grand Jury proceedings”…

This only means that the state cannot violate a persons right to life without using a specific mechanism, ditto for the right to a trial. That does not give everyone has the right to a jury, only the right not to be deprived of freedom without one.

Not that I disagree with the rest of your post.

By: Hume

Hume — Fri, 18 Nov 2011 05:57:05 +0000

“Government is to protect citizens from others’ encroachments on our rights (e.g., by defending property rights against force and fraud)”

This looks awfully like a positive right to me. Also, the Bill of Rights does not provide the support you seek. For example, the 5th Amendment states “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury.” So individuals have a right to Grand Jury proceedings. This requires others doing positive acts in order to provide this right. The 5th Amendment continues: “nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” So individuals have the positive right to due process of law. This requires others doing positive acts in order to provide this right. The 6th Amendment states “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury.” This requires others to do positive acts, for an “impartial jury” must be made up of persons. The same can be said about the 7th Amendment.

As an anarchist/libertarian, I am sympathetic to the claim that “negative rights” are the rights individuals actually posses. But I do not think the issue is some sort of self-evident maxim that needs no justification or defense. Nor do I think that those who favor positive rights are ignorant or evil men. The negative/positive debate has been argued to death over the last decades; it does not serve the libertarian cause to pretend like this debate is not a live one with strong arguments on both sides, or that this is a fetish of the 20th-21st century (Rousseau and Kant come immediately to mind (recall that Kant argues that everyone has a right to demand that others enter into political society, a positive right)).

By: Nuke Gray

Nuke Gray — Fri, 18 Nov 2011 02:41:39 +0000

A journalist once proposed lampooning the whole concept by insisting on cosmic justice! Whilst never explained, I always thought this meant that every planet should have a nice ring around it (why should Saturn have a monopoly on big rings?), and should be an equal distance from the Sun, and why don’t we go back in time and stop whatever got rid of the dinosaurs- and let’s make all lifeforms vegetarians! Cosmic Justice, NOW!

By: Hack

Hack — Fri, 18 Nov 2011 01:29:21 +0000

Your articles are great. Thanks.