I wrote a bit about social justice last week in the great retainer medicine debates. Panda Bear and Graham took the baton and continued the debate later in the week. Unfortunately, Panda’s blog is unobtainable this morning, but I can link to Graham -  Panda doesn’t understand me or social justice.

So we have two very bright bloggers debating this issue, but I believe they are not really debating the issue, but rather debating a definition. Social justice as a term brings differing thoughts to readers. I will try to contrast the concepts.

For a social welfare perspective, social justice implies the society will provide for all. Social welfare advocates might debate the level of provision, but clearly they believe that we should provide food, shelter, public education and usually medical care. They believe that society (i.e. government) has an obligation to provide – with room for arguing what minimal provision means.

Libertarians believe that social justice means that everyone has the right and opportunity to achieve. This philosophy assumes that challenging each person to earn their subsistence leads to a better overall society.

The disagreement is almost a religious one. At the risk of starting a religious controversy, I will contrast the commonly used Christian Golden Rule, “Do unto other as you would have them do unto you” with the Jewish concept – “What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man. This is the law: all the rest is commentary.” This interesting web site categorizes the Golden Rule in many religions – Shared belief in the “Golden Rule”

How much do the producers owe the non-producers? Now clearly every society has downtrodden and unfortunate. Most societies have helped these people with charity. The form of charity differs across cultures, but generally we try to help the destitute.

As a libertarian, I worry about the social welfare approach, because it provides subtle incentives to avoid responsibility. The social welfare approach can lead to a form of laziness in some members of society, potentially dragging down the entire society.

As a physician I have seen those who could work, but prefer not to work. I see those people “shop” for disability, going from physician to physician trying to have one of us fill out a form to provide them with an income. Some of these patients are truly disabled, and I gladly fill out the forms. Others are looking for a way to “beat the system.”

We have immigrants flocking to this country, legally and illegally. They come because of the libertarian nature of our social justice. We do not put major barriers to success born of hard work and persistence.

Thus, we have a major philosophical and religious difference in our responsibilities. I fear the insidious externalities of a welfare state. The social welfare advocates want to end suffering. Is either position better or worse than the other? Each reader must decide how to view this issue, but please respect the other side. We cannot really debate an issue that is so fundamental to domestic policy, when our views depend on a major philosophic difference.

Related posts:

1. Understanding retainer medicine
2. Wisdom from my blogging peers
3. Why no malpractice reform in the current bills?
4. Related posts and social buttons
5. Should I add Facebook?

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.