Two Theories of Social Justice

Rest assured, disputes over what comprises social justice are going to arise during the upcoming presidential campaign. The Democrats, in particular, are going to assert that they are the paladins of social justice; that only they can protect the little guy from exploitation.
The validity of this claim, however, rests on how we understand “social justice.” To this end, let us examine two rival views. These may be summarized as the “Robin Hood” and the “Three Little Pigs” theories.
In the Robin Hood version, it is necessary to steal from the rich to give to the poor. According to it, because wealth is unequally distributed, a champion must level the playing field. Only this person can correct unfairness by forcing the affluent to disgorge their ill-gotten gains.
This theory is obviously favored by the Democrats. They insist that everyone must pay their “fair share” and therefore increased taxes must be levied on the upper one percent. Only this can provide a modicum of decency.
In contrast, the Little Pigs version of justice allows the players to keep what they earn. It notes that of the three pigs, only the industrious one invested the effort into building a house of bricks and therefore only his dwelling resisted the efforts of the Big, Bad Wolf to turn him into a pork dinner.
The Republicans favor this parable in that they too believe individuals deserve to benefit from their own efforts. For them, justice is not about achieving full equality, but about guarding human rights—including property rights.
If we translate these theories into contemporary politics, then Barack Obama hopes to play the Robin Hood role. There is, however, a small problem with this. Barack is the president. In this sense, he is the sheriff. He is not a humble outlaw seeking to redress governmental wrongs, but can draw upon the coercive power of the state to enforce his mandates.
Yet, what if we do regard Obama as an outlaw. He has, after all, flouted the constitution at many turns. Then does he, like Robin Hood, get to pick those whom he plunders, as well as those upon whom he showers his favor? Might he, for instance, choose to force one company into bankruptcy while forgiving the debts of another—that is, as long its owners contributed to his campaign?
And what of those Republican pigs? They are presumed to be irredeemably selfish, yet the original little pigs presented a different picture. The industrious pig, it will be remembered, offered his siblings the shelter of his abode. They came to his sturdier house for protection against the wolf.
In the real world, it turns out that conservatives give far more to charity than liberals. They may believe in private property, but that does not mean they are without compassion. The difference is in how people are helped. On the one side, individuals provide succor, while on the other, virtually all assistance is channeled through the federal government?
But what if the latter took over? What if we decided that only the government should provide fairness? With respect to the three little pigs, would this translate into Obama decreeing that each pig be provided with exactly the same number of bricks?
Let’s, however, take this supposition a step further. In taking bricks from the industrious pig, wouldn’t this leave him with too few to build a substantial structure? And, as to the other pigs, what guarantees that they will use their bricks to improve their dwellings?
In the end, the probable outcome of this arbitrarily enforced equality is three ramshackle edifices and one very well fed wolf.
If this sounds absurd, we have, in fact, witnessed the outcome of government enforced social justice elsewhere. It occurred in the old Soviet Union. There the government controlled all of the strings and distributed goods according to formulae of its own devising.
So what did people wind up with? As history records, they were rewarded with both poverty and tyranny. Or, as the libertarian John Hospers used to say, they were well on their way to “splendidly equalized destitution.” —Some justice!
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University