The Problem of the Concept of "Social Justice".

today, we often hear the call for 'social justice' from many quarters, mainly from the left and the people-of-color groups. but, is the concept of 'social justice' applicable to a liberal democracy where freedom and rights are ensured to all?
the concept of social justice is valid in cases where there is genuine injustice. but where there is none, 'social justice' is a misleading concept that blinds us to the true nature of our social problems. the problems we are dealing with today are those of technological change, freedom, and economic imbalances that result from those freedoms--both positive and negative.
a positive freedom is using one's innately superior intelligence, in combination with one's ambition and discipline, to obtain great wealth and success thru the free market process. a negative freedom is abusing freedom to indulge in pathological behavior which does much harm not only to the community but to oneself, leading one to poverty, prison, or worse.
at any rate, the problem is no longer about 'social justice' since we are living in a free nation where rights are guaranteed to all.
the concept of justice makes no sense without injustice. and injustice is not a matter of social consequences but of intent to do others wrong, oppress, or such.
in other words, if there are two students and the teacher favors one student over another resulting in the success of the favored student and the failure of the unfavored student, then we can speak of social injustice and need for social justice. BUT, if two students are treated equally and fairly, and one does well and succeeds in life because of his diligence/smarts while the other fails because of his laziness/idiocy, then it's not a matter of social justice or social injustice. no injustice has been committed. as such, it makes no sense to call for social justice regarding the fact that one succeeded in life while the other did not.
IF one student had been given all the advantages while the other was denied all chances despite his best effort, we can speak of social injustice and the need for social justice. when such is not the case, invoking 'social justice' is a demagogic cheapshot.

in america today, there are serious social problems and consequences of economic divisions. and, one may argue that some of this is the result of the history of social injustice. we can argue that though US is truly democratic and ensures equal rights and protection for all, we can't just wipe away the effects of centuries of racial discrimination overnight. we can argue that the reason why blacks face greater social problems in this country is because of past social injustices. there is surely some truth to this.
however, it's arguable as to how much impact past history has on a certain group. after all, weren't jews terribly oppressed for centuries in europe? yet, why did they do so much better than gypsies? indeed, why did they often do much better than the favored goyim majority population? one may also ask why japanese-americans, among the most wronged people in american history, have done so well while americans of hispanic descent--even white ones--have done less well? how much is a people's accomplishment dependent on history and how much is it dependent on culture? both play a role surely, but more and more evidence seems to indicate that culture is more important than history. indeed, few people have gone thru as horrible a history as chinese in the modern era. yet, they are making tremendous strides. meanwhile, much of africa is sinking deeper and deeper into poverty and chaos--even parts of africa that were barely affected by western imperialism and its repressiveness. indeed, it gets funnier yet when the most successful african case today--for blacks as for whites--is south africa, a nation that had been the posterboy of white evil/oppression in africa. how ironic that the 'most oppressed' nation in black africa is now the richest, freest, and most poised to play a leading role for all of africa?
there is also the matter of women. throughout human history, men have ruled over womenfolks.
all through human history, women were told they are inferior to men in every way. this is a legacy that doesn't go back merely decades, centuries, millenia, but 100s of millenia. yet, upon the enacting of equal rights between men and women, it looks as though women have easily unshackled themselves from 100,000s of yrs of conditioning that they are not capable of intellectual feats and such things.
the fact of life is that no matter how long human history may be, the memory of each person goes back only decades. history have proven over and over that what really affects history is what we choose to remember from happened and how we embrace those matters. remembrance of history can be a self-fulfilling prophecy.
upon the end of WWII, jews decided 'never again' and made a firm resolve to be stronger and work to build a powerful jewish community in israel and other nations where they were prominent. jews didn't take a defeatist position but an activist position. in contrast, alot of blacks in the US have decided to take a defeatist--no matter how enraged and aggressive the style of rhetoric--position that says blacks cannot do anything and whites must do everything for blacks. blacks are waiting for godot.


anyway, the concept of social justice matters when entire groups or individuals are denied basic rights and protection under the law. when there was genuine racial discrimination in the US, it made sense to speak of social justice since there was really social injustice. this was a matter of legal design and political repression. especially in the south, blacks did not have the same rights and access to legal/social protection as whites.

but, is that the problem today? of course not, but we still keep hearing about 'social injustice or the need for 'social justice'. one of the appeal of the term is the romanticism inherent in the idea of struggle for social progress. under this paradigm, society is oppressive, repressive, far-from-perfect, and has a-long-ways-to-go. so, we must keep struggling for social justice until we get closer and closer. one problem is that such rhetoric is utopian, even anti-democratic and anti-pluralist. modern liberal democracy is NOT utopian. it doesn't and mustn't aim to be perfect. rather, it allows equal rights and freedom for all. freedom can be used in myriad ways, good and bad, intelligently and stupidly. and metaphors aside, we are not created equal in literal terms. not all boxers are muhammad ali. not all financiers have the smarts of warren buffet. not all computer industry people have the genius or balls of larry ellison or bill gates. under a system of freedom, we are NEVER going to have equality. therefore, the idea that we should/must move toward a society of greater equality is not truly progressive if by 'progressive', we mean a better society. society is constantly changing, and it's human to always want to make things better, but equality is not synonymous with better if by equality we mean forced equality undermining the principles of freedom. also, society is advanced not by the masses but by geniuses. you can have a billion people of average intelligence. not in a 1000 yrs will they figure out E = MC2, yet it took only one einstein. a society moves forward and makes progress by giving freedom to its geniuses and visionaries to invent, design, and shape the new world.
in such a world, everyone must be equally free. we never know where the next genius will come from. it could be from any city, any town, any village. every person should have the freedom to follow his dream. but, following one's dream always means that one will rise above or even tower above others. we cannot predict who the next genius will be or where he will come from. of course, depending on the talent we can generally guess from which ethnic group the genius or supertalent will arise. if it's a matter of athletics, the chances are black community will likely provide the best talent. when it comes to math and sciences, chances are the genius will be an ashkenazi jew. still, we want the very best to be in the position of highest authority. and the only way to ensure that the best will rise to the top is by having a nation of freedom.
since everyone is equally free and has the right to climb in the world, there is no social injustice. there would be social injustice if a unversity said 'no jews allowed' or 'no hindus allowed' or 'no blacks allowed'. but, when all are allowed, it makes no sense of speak of social justice.

nevertheless, we must be mindful of the problems of freedom. some people will rise high and mighty. many will do moderately well. but a substantial number of people will not do so well, do badly, or completely fall thru the cracks. there are many reasons for this. one is cultural/personal values pervalent among some people. a culture of mindless hedonism, vulgarity, stupidism, infantilism, puerilism, and lazism will destroy any community. even with all the freedom and opportunities, people soaked with such lousy cultural (anti-)values will use freedom to be destructive, to skip school, fuc* everything that moves, and beat up teachers. once out of school, they simply don't have the proper mindset to hold a job; they are either lazy at work, steal on the job, or are chronically late or absent.
but, there are other reasons for failures as well. consider lower intelligence among some folks. some folks simply are dim-bulbs and not fit for any kind of skilled labor. in a nation where high skills are necessary for success in life, the dummies among us are gonna feel the pinch. there used to be plenty of low-skilled but decent paying manufacturing jobs in the US. no longer. many of those jobs have gone over to low wage workers overseas. in an increasingly globalized world where highly intelligent and ambitious people can practice commerce on a trans-national scale, integrating resources around the world for maximum profit for corporations, there's bound to be a greater rift between the very successful and very unsuccessful.
related to what's just been stated is the nature of the capitalist economy in general, global or national. capitalism necessarily creates hiearcharies based on merit and ambition(and luck); of course, there are connections at work among various groups. rich wasps have their network, rich jews have theirs. rich women have theirs. blacks have theirs. unions exert their own kind of block or solidarity power.
even so, we are always gonna have divisions. while hierarchies are necessary and not necessarily bad, certain hiearchies are problematic if an underclass with a set of lousy values develop out of such reality. in some cases, even with full rights/freedom for all and shared values by all or most, the economy will only be able to offer a choice number of privileged positions for a limited number of people. this is not a matter of 'social injustice' as the winners in such society gained their rewards thru fairness and transparency. but, there is still the problem of too many people left with little or next-to-nothing.
in such cases, it makes sense to have the government play an active role in implementing certain socialistic policies. we are not talking of welfare statism which is unconditional but of conditional socialism where the government distributes wealth to the people by demanding that something in return from the people. it could be public projects or training programs. at any rate, wealth is redistributed thru the government. now, this must only be done when and where the private sector or free markets are not adequate in ensuring decent living standards for the people.
never interfere in sectors or with people who are reaping the benefits of capitalism and free markets. but, it makes sense to reasonably tax those are doing well to provide programs for those who are not doing well at all or who have little chance of entering the free market system which, for the time being, cannot offer enough jobs or opportunities for all.
at any rate, such programs are not a matter of 'social justice'. it's a matter of social pragmatism and social sensibleness. again, the idea of 'justice' applies only where a group of people have intentionally done wrong to another group of people. if all people are free and if from this freedom some do better than others, it's not a matter of social injustice.
for example, consider this scenario: there are two friends in high school. one is named nick and the other is named mike. suppose mike makes the grades, studies business management, and does well in life. meanwhile, nick skips school, uses alot of bad drugs, and fails in life. now, mike is successful and nick is not. is it a matter of social (in)justice? did mike commit a wrong against nick? or, reverse this scenario. suppose nick had been industrious and built up a construction business and has done well in life. meanwhile, mike spent most of his youth listening to loud rock and using bad drugs and such.. nick is successful, mike is not. is it nick's fault that mike has failed? a leftist will say, 'look, we need social justice. one guy is rich, the other isn't'. but, is nick's success a matter of having done mike wrong or having stolen from mike? if anything, nick, in building his business, has hired people and created jobs, has purchases material which has added to sales to other businesses, and has served as a builder in his community. how is he an exploiter or oppressor? what does 'social justice' mean in this context?
most successful people in america didn't gain riches by oppressing others. they played the game fair and square and won. if two teams play a game following the rules and one teams wins, does it make sense to talk of 'athletic justice'?
in america, many of the media and academic positions are held by jews. it's too bad that many of these jews are evil leftwing jews, BUT most of them gained their positions fair and square by being smarter and more intellectually oriented. given this fact, does it make sense to speak of 'cultural justice' or 'intellectual justice', complaining of jewish dominance in cultural and intellectual affairs and issues?
of course, the mother of all ironies is that jews, the greatest beneficiaries of meritocracy and the richest and arguably the most powerful people in america are the ones who are making the biggest noises about 'social justice'. well, if the likes of george soros and larry brin(of google) and david geffen(all billionaires) think our society is an unfair one of privileged rich and oppressed poor, just what in the hell are they? are they confessing that they made their money in devious and venal ways? if so, give it back. pay all their earnings as taxes. pass it out to people in the streets. i find it funny that a people--jews--who have gained MOST from our system of freedom are the ones who complain the worst. one wonders if jews are trying to have the cake and eat it too. on the one hand, they want to be the winners and have more than the rest of us. but, they fear that we will see them as rich pigs, so they make a lot of noise about the evils of the rich. of course, by evil rich, liberal jews never mean themselves but rich wasps of old money or nouveau rich asians of japan and china. meanwhile, they present themselves as the nicest, most wonderful, kindest friends to all of humanity, especially negroes.

anyway, it's time to bury the concept of 'social justice' in america. problem is we--especially leftwing jews who control our thinking thru media and academia--are so indoctrinated with the paradigm of 'social justice' that we seem to think every failing, every problem, every imperfection of america is a scandalous example of social injustice. today, radical feminists--dominated by ugly leftwing jewesses--insist that there is no difference between the oppression of women in the muslim world and the 'oppression' of women in the west thru advertising which shackle women in the cult-prison-of-beauty. just because some leftwing jewesses are ugly as hell and are jealous of shikses, they have tried their darnest best to persuade every woman that looks shouldn't matter at all.