Join the Debate!
All comments and users are subject to Townhall's new comments policy.
Login in to Post Your Comments
MadisonLives Wrote: Jun 28, 2012 8:56 AM
Correct -- THAT form of social justice is BS. But since voting is (a) private and (b) free the government is going to be in the helping people business whether we like it or not. Our message has to be "If we're going to be helping people, fine... let's do it (a) under a cap and (b) let's prioritize the budget so the best spending wins -- the spending that gets results" In other words, the path to limits government is to get better at selling just how good what remains og government can be at pursuiing social justice. Yes it is counter-intuitive, but "social justice through limited assistance" is no more counter-intuitive than "peach through strength" (strong military) or "power through serving" (a republic) or "wealth via regulation"
Login to Reply
Flag as Offensive
Post Comment
Editor's Note: This is Part III in a series. Part I can be found here. Part II can be found here.
If there were a Hall of Fame for political rhetoric, the phrase "social justice" would deserve a prominent place there. It has the prime virtue of political catchwords: It means many different things to many different people.
In other words, if you are a politician, you can get lots of people, with different concrete ideas, to agree with you when you come out boldly for the vague generality of "social justice."
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said that a good...
A Political Glossary: Part III