Inequality and Social Justice

Inequality and social justice. To the eyes of many, particularly those on the left, these two concepts are mutually exclusive. However, to me, they can be inclusive, in many cases social justice requires inequality. You see, I define social justice as any order that has come about through just practice. I define just practice as anything that is voluntary and does not involve the initiation of physical force against peaceful individuals and justly held property (ie. property obtained without coercion or violence). As a result, I see the authentic free market, without coercion from government or private organizations against property, as being inherently just because it is inherently voluntary. Anything non-voluntary is unjust, period.

Where does inequality fit in? Well, on the private markets people earn money, it is that simple. Some people are simply born with inherently more skills and higher abilities to know what consumers want and to know how to give it to them and as a result they will suceed in business. Some people are also born with inherent skills that will make companies want to employ them more. Some start out at a higher level of income to begin with. Nonetheless, the fact that some people are of higher skills than others will result in inequality everywhere and all the time. If every single person on Earth started with $50,000 and an identical education inequality would still result, it is the iron law of the world.

If inequality results in accordance with voluntary action then it has resulted justly. If inequality results from anything else then it has resulted unjustly. If inequality has resulted justly then nobody has any right to use force in order to alleviate it. Even if using the violence of the state against inequality resulted in 100% equality it would not be justified. However, if inequality results from violence and coercion then it is 100% justified to redistribute wealth back to its rightful owners.

Allow me to use two examples to illustrate just vs. unjust inequality. In example A, Bob decides to start his own business. He takes out a loan and opens a small restaurant, within a few years the restaurant has expanded to the level where he can open up a second franchise on the other side of town. This franchise is equally popular and soon Bob opens up a few other franchises all over the state. Soon people are clamoring and asking to start franchises with Bob and he signs contracts with him and soon his chain expands. Soon Bob owns one of the largest restaurant chains in the country and is a very wealthy man. Rob, on the other hand, does not open his own business and instead spends his money on beer and cigarettes. He prefers to work at the local supermarket. Eventually Rob looks around and finds himself poor and living in a trailer. In example B, we go to a Latin American country. Roberto is a peasant farmer whose land was stolen by the state and given into the hands of big ranchers. The rancher Boberto grows rich off Roberto's ancestral land while Roberto grows poor. Roberto wants to start his own business in order to get ahead but friends of Boberto's in the government force him to pay bribes, and he cannot. Soon Roberto finds himself living in a hut while Boberto lives in a mansion.

Now, in both cases I illustrated above, lets say that the "Robs" come to believe that their stations in life are unjust. They decide to begin political movements to combat the "Bobs." In each case they successfully persuade their governments to take money from the "Bobs" by force to give to the "Robs." In case B it is perfectlly justifiable and the inequities totally unjustifiable. In case A it is totally unjustifiable and the inequalities just. What is the difference? The difference is that in case A the inequality resulted voluntarily and in case B it resulted via force. Does this mean my heart is hardened toward Rob? No. I feel sorry for him, and there is a role for charity in helping him out. Simply defending inequalities as just does not mean I think it is morally right for rich people to spend money on lavish lifestyles while ignoring the poor. However, I define justice and morality as two sides of the same coin, justice being what is right socially and morality being what is right individually. Sometimes the two go together, sometimes morality is solely an individual practice.

The liberals, progressives, socialists, and communists, on the other hand, think it is perfectly justifiable to steal from Bob to give to Rob, just as justifiable as redistribution from Boberto to Roberto. They define this forced expropriation of Bob's property as "social justice." However, is it truly justice if Bob's property was earned justly and it requires theft to achieve the desired result? No. It is not, and it is the height of hypocrisy that many of the same leftists who champion the morality of the gun in order to achieve a more desirable distribution of wealth at the same time preach peace and even outright pacifism. However, it does not add up. Whatever you ask another to do for you it is like you do yourself. If you demand that government uses its guns to take from one man to give to another it is as if you are using those guns yourself; to say you wouldn't do such a thing and then demanding it done is hypocrisy. You must have the courage to do so with your own hand. I myself was once a man of the left and preached peace and love, and when I saw my hypocrisy; preaching peace while demanding violence, I did not abandon peace but embraced it more fully. The bottom line is this; the initiation of force against peaceful and voluntary organizations is not justified no matter how "humanitarian" it may seem. Social justice is not aggression and aggression can never be called justice of any kind. It is an insult to the name of justice altogether.

If inequities result from the voluntary market they do indeed constitute social justice. If they result from the gun and the sword they are the opposite of social justice. In the same way, if equality is achieved by using the gun against inequalities produced by the market it can never be called social justice. If guns are used to right what guns have caused then it can indeed be called social justice. The left needs to gets in ducks in a row and see justice for what justice is and injustice for what injustice is. Inequality and social justice are not mutually exclusive, in many cases social justice requires toleration of inequality.