Hayek Views On Social Justice

Renowned economist Friedrich Hayek once said “I have come to feel strongly that the greatest service I can still render my fellow man would be that I could make speakers and writers among them thoroughly ashamed ever again to employ the term ‘Social Justice.’”

What was it he saw in such a seemingly positive term, social justice? Hayek, an Austrian economist, philosopher, and to a large degree, modern symbol of classical liberalism, understood what many of us have chosen to forget. Hayek understood in order for what we call ‘social justice’ to be achieved, freedom must necessarily be sacrificed at the altar of government. In short, a redistribution of wealth that occurs through force, and one that never ends as it is a beast with an insatiable
appetite.

What is Social Justice?
In order to understand Hayek’s view we first need to understand social justice, which in many cases is nearly impossible to understand. What you call social justice your neighbor may not; in fact, if you place a hundred people in a room you are likely to get nearly as many answers. This begs the question, how can we achieve something we cannot agreeably define, and how much force is necessary to achieve its success?

The first problem with the term “Social Justice” is it means too many things for too many people, issues surrounding race, women’s rights, universal healthcare, a right to income, jobs, housing, food, on and on. And by “right” we must understand that in the context of social justice, this right comes from government, it must be provided for by government and government must rectify any wrongs. What is government; by nature it is and is only force. There is nothing above or below, there is nothing else on either side, it is force and force
alone.

Then we reach the problem with social justice, the things that often define it, depending on who you ask, no one would say these are bad things. Normal people want other people to have homes, there isn’t a desire by a segment of the population to see others without healthcare, to see women trampled on or to see minorities enter into a new era of Jim Crow. However, if you argue the manner by which social justice is implemented, immediately you are accused of just that regardless of how pure your heart may be.

Having a differing opinion on how issues should be addressed, you are now viewed as an enemy of the people. If you argue your points with logic and facts, if you present truth that is undisputable and even if you do so pure of heart and as a virtuous man, you are and remain an enemy of social justice. As stated by the United Nations, “Present-day believers in an absolute truth identified with virtue and justice are neither willing or desirable companions for the defenders of social justice.”

To deny truth and reasoning should be enough to cause any rational human being to question almost anything, but the social justice warriors believe they hold the moral high ground out of compassion.
How are they being compassionate? Compassion by means of social justice is taking from others what does not belong to them and giving it to someone else. In short, the government takes from those it finds undeserving, regardless of it being earned, and places it in the hands of another, which is a position that is and can never be earned. Many will clamor this is OK if they believe they fall into a victimized class, but this must be met with a strong
warning.

We now live in a society where your victimization card is a half a breath away from being thrown into the dumpster and replaced by someone else’s. You’re an African American, sorry, you now rank below the Hispanic gay man, but don’t worry, the African American lesbian ranks above him, but all of you are out ranked by the transgendered fellow named Bill now going by Jane whose race is irrelevant. But again, do not fret, Jane will soon lose her standing as we are steeped in an ever evolving pit of ridiculousness.

Benevolence:

The state is not benevolent and your leaders cannot impose upon you social justice. This is an impossibility.

Equal Representation:

The state cannot remedy all wrongs, and disagreeing with this does not make you an enemy of the people. A government that believes it can remedy all wrongs is not one that is representative of a free people.

In order to help fully understand this we only need look at the 14th and 15th amendments. These amendments ensured the rights of all Americans were equally bestowed upon all Americans, and that all such Americans also possessed the right to vote. These amendments, revolving around the now free black men of the United States, did not remedy a wrong, they prevented the states and their citizens from enacting wrong doing. Was it perfect, of course not, many wrongs were still done, and it took growth as men and as a nation to reach where we are today. Is it over, are all things now rainbows and sunshine, no, that would be a foolish statement, but nothing in life or our country will ever reach that state as it is an impossible one. But that’s good; for it is the struggle to be better men that makes us better men. That is equality, that is justice, because it is what all men in the United States are given, but not by government, they enjoy it because they are free men independent of their government and possess no master.