Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I think normally 'social justice' is threefold - demands for progressive taxation play a part, but as with many arguments in the UK it's principally imported inappropriately from US bulletin boards.


Taxation in the US is demonstrably less progressive than in the UK, and so the focus loses its validity when it's applied to the UK where welfare, health and education play a very egalitarian role in society.


Conversely, 'social justice' is also heavily reliant on redistribution of wealth and property, something rarely pursued by successful communities as it disempowers the individual in favour of the state.


This has a failure rate so high that it's frankly surprising that any remotely educated adult would espouse it.


However, the idea was supported by John Rawls, who was notable for other very bright ideas such as equality in the eyes of the law, and democratic consensus. Most of these ideas were evidently agreeable, and at the time he was fighting 1950s and 60s American extremist politics.


So I prefer to think the redistribution of wealth and property was the product of his age, and leans toward a revolutionary fringe that doesn't seem so valid today.


Mainly though, it's another boring American idea that's inappropriate for an essentially socialist UK society.


I do note though, that Rawls thought humanity to be both reasonable and rational - something that UDT would probably not agree with - so he'd be an unwilling bed partner to UDT's foil hat defensiveness.

"Conversely, 'social justice' is also heavily reliant on redistribution of wealth and property, something rarely pursued by successful communities as it disempowers the individual in favour of the state.


This has a failure rate so high that it's frankly surprising that any remotely educated adult would espouse it. "


Man, you are on FIRE lately. The happiest and in many cases most successful communities (your Scandinavians, Germans etc) have all leaned more towards that model than us, uk or Singapore.


Is not impossible

Erm.... Taxation in SG is very progressive, just not substantial.


Wasn't my choice anyhow, just seems to work quite well.


Gonna have to check whether Scandis spend wisely. Last time I checked there was a political rebellion about siding with the Krauts, or anyone in Europe. Great if you've changed your mind.


Neither society believes in redistribution of wealth or property.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • There clearly isn't one but this is a well trodden path that some of us, me included, have been on the receiving end of previously. Some people have been warned about this in the past but, seemingly, never learn.......
    • Really? I made no comment on any of his facial features whatsoever. I observed that he was "expressionless" and suggested that  "if only his face could break out into a smile occasionally then that would help ". These observations refer to behavioural aspects  of Starmer's performance as he appears on the media. Where's the hate and where's the crime?    
    • Errr, ever such a knee-jerk response there @malumbu...I am not sure that referring to someone as expressionless is a hate crime - you're making a huge leap with that one and they didn't say they didn't like their facial features - what they are actually being critical of is the lack of use of their facial features.....;-)! 
    • Amended my earlier post to take this into account.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...