TINSTASJ

There is no such thing as social justice.

[A condensed version of this post is on Facebook here.]

I’m sick of the use of the phrase “social justice”.

Social justice does not exist. Justice cannot have a modifier – there is no economic justice, social justice, or any other kind of justice, there is only justice.

Social justice, at its simplest, is often framed as fairness in how society distributes resources, opportunities, and rights—leveling the playing field so no one’s screwed by birth or circumstance. The argument for its existence is that we can measure progress: think civil rights laws cutting discrimination, or welfare systems reducing poverty stats. Data backs this up—countries with stronger social safety nets, like Denmark or Sweden, consistently show lower income inequality (Gini coefficients around 0.25-0.28) compared to, say, the U.S. (0.41). So, in that sense, you could argue that social justice isn’t a myth; it’s just incremental, messy, and imperfect.

I don’t buy that and here is why: defining "fairness" is a nightmare. Who decides what’s just? One person’s equity is another’s handouts - look at debates over affirmative action or universal basic income. X posts on this are a dumpster fire of clashing takes: some call it reparative justice, others scream "reverse discrimination." Plus, human nature—greed, tribalism, power grabs - keeps derailing the utopia train. Even in those "egalitarian" Nordic countries, wealth still clusters at the top; their systems soften the edges but don’t erase the game. So if you mean "social justice" as some flawless end-state where everyone’s equal and happy, yeah, that’s a unicorn - impossible because humans are messy and subjective as hell.

In my view, so-called social justice and individual freedom are incompatible - social justice requires the taking of something from another or disadvantaging them in some way for that to be given to another party. It requires an authoritarian government structure to exist.

Social justice and individual freedom are fundamentally at odds because one person’s gain under a "just" system always means another’s loss, and that enforcing this setup demands a heavy-handed state. If social justice means redistributing resources or opportunities - like taxing the rich to fund welfare or setting quotas to boost marginalized groups - it’s zero-sum. Someone’s freedom to keep their stuff or compete unchecked gets curtailed. Take wealth taxes: in 2021, the top 1% in the U.S. paid 42% of federal income tax, per IRS data, to fund programs that, in theory, level things out. That’s a direct hit to their financial autonomy for someone else’s benefit. Or look at employment equity policies—hiring to balance demographics can mean passing over a qualified individual for group-based outcomes. Freedom for one (to keep earnings or merit-based shots) shrinks to expand another’s (access to resources or jobs).

The authoritarian piece fits too. To pull this off, you need a system with teeth—laws, enforcement, bureaucracy. Without centralized power, who’s making sure the "taking" happens? Look at historical tries: Soviet-style collectivism or even modern-day progressive tax codes. The state grows, monitors, and punishes noncompliance. X users railing against "big government" often tie this to social justice agendas—think posts about IRS overreach or DEI mandates in corporations. The more you engineer fairness, the more control you cede to whoever’s holding the reins. And power is rarely compatible with maximizing individual liberty.

On the flip side, defenders might say freedom isn’t absolute anyway - your liberty to swing your fist ends at my nose. They’d argue that social justice just redraws that line so fewer people get punched by systemic bad luck (poverty, discrimination). But that dodge doesn’t fully counter your point: even if it’s framed as fairness, it still leans on coercion, and someone’s still losing something—voluntarily or not.

But if you prioritize individual freedom as non-negotiable, as our country was designed to do, the argument holds. The trade-off’s real: social justice, as usually pitched, does erode some personal autonomy for a collective goal, and that does need some “authority” to enforce it. The question is whether that erosion’s a dealbreaker for you, or if there’s a middle ground where freedom and fairness don’t choke each other out. Where do you land on that?

It does depend on the definition of "fairness", which is a qualitative idea. As Hayek reported Lenin saying, it is all about the universal question of "Who, whom?" - as in who decides for whom, who plans for whom, etc.

“Fairness” is slippery, subjective, and ultimately boils down to power: who gets to call the shots, and who’s on the receiving end? Hayek channeling Lenin’s “Who, whom?” cuts right to that bone. It’s not just about the outcomes; it’s about who’s steering the ship and who’s getting dragged along.

Hayek saw centralized control as the inevitable byproduct of chasing social justice. Define fairness however you want (equal opportunity, equal results, whatever), someone’s got to enforce it. That means planners - elites, bureaucrats, whoever - deciding what’s “just” for everyone else. Lenin’s blunt take strips it bare: it’s always a power play. Who taxes? Who redistributes? Who sets the rules? The “whom” just has to eat it. Look at any system pushing social justice—say, progressive tax policies or affirmative action. IRS data or hiring stats can show the mechanics, but the real kicker is the authority behind it, picking winners and losers.

The qualitative mess of fairness only deepens the problem. One person’s “fair” is another’s theft – you simply can’t reconcile everyone’s “fair” without force. Even a lighter touch, like welfare in a free market, still needs a “who” with enough clout to override the “whom” opting out.

Therefore, the claim of incompatibility stands: individual freedom - where no one’s coerced into someone else’s vision - can’t coexist with a social justice that demands a referee. The middle ground’s a mirage unless you ditch the idea of imposing fairness altogether – and therein lies the trap.

There is no way to avoid that trap when trying to create “social justice”. It is like equality versus equity, they sound alike but are vastly different. Equality and equity might sound like cousins, but they pull in opposite directions, and that gap’s where the power grab hides.

Equality is straightforward: same rules, same shot for everyone, no favoritism. It’s blind, at least in theory - think meritocracy or flat taxes. Freedom thrives there because no one’s rigging the game; you sink or swim on your own. Equity, though? That’s the social justice darling - adjusting the system so outcomes feel “fair.” It’s not enough for everyone to start at the same line; some need a boost, others a handicap. Think progressive taxes (top 10% in the U.S. paid 71% of federal income tax in 2021, per IRS) or diversity quotas. Sounds noble, but it’s a loaded gun: someone’s got to define “fair,” measure the gaps, and enforce the fix. That’s the “who” in Lenin’s equation, and the “whom” just deals.

The difference isn’t subtle. Equality lets individuals duke it out; equity demands a referee with a playbook—and a stick. X posts show the rift daily: “Equal rights, not special rights!” versus “Systemic inequality needs systemic solutions!” One’s hands-off, the other’s hands-on—guess which one needs a bigger state? Hayek would agree with me: equity’s pursuit, however well-meaning, builds a cage for freedom because it can’t exist without control. No dodging that.

When I say the trap is baked in and the equity-equality split proves it, the evidence - historical or just scrolling on social media backs me: every stab at equity grows the “who” at the expense of the “whom.” No wiggle room unless you ditch the whole idea of some arbitrary authority to control everything.

And that is not what American government, or our elected officials are charged with. They are there to protect an environment where equality and liberty can flourish, not create some Frankenstein’s monster out of our Constitution as they attempt to tip the scales.

In Federalist #51, James Madison wrote:

“If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controuls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: You must first enable the government to controul the governed; and in the next place, oblige it to controul itself. A dependence on the people is no doubt the primary controul on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.’

Smart dude.

We should listen to him.