I have no right to influence your social decisions in any forceful or coercive way unless I bear some risk or danger from those choices which you make. I only bear consequences from individual social choices you make when I am economically liable for them under a social justice theory or when I am a party in some way to the transaction. Therefore as a matter of property law I am covered and protected from the latter and therefore the former is the only issue of significance. This means that a social justice theory when it comes to economic responsibility to or fellow citizens for “necessities” or needed luxuries as I call them such as premium health care must necessarily to be just have a corresponding theory f social justice relating to the social decisions those beneficiaries of the original social justice theory. Those who are aided under social justice theory impose on me a direct cost through my pocketbook which gives me the right to regulate their activity. Therefore you can either have an economic social justice system mixed with no choice on issues such as who you sleep with or what type of sex you have to the type and quantity of food you place in your mouth or we can abandon that theory and allow both social and economic liberty.
This will occur through rent seeking regardless of acceptance because the wealthy who happen to be those who make good choices will be rent seeking to limit their liability under the theory thereby attempting to reduce expenditures while reducing social liberty. On the other hand the poor and those who make bad choices will wish to expand their individual liberty while maximizing the shift assets from the wealthy to them. This spirals through cycles of encouraging heavy government regulation in social and financial life while also leading to increased rent seeking and irresponsible and inefficient behavior by all!
Is this why we have the Left wanting less economic liberty and more social liberty and the Right wanting more economic liberty and less social liberty? Each is representing one side in the Social Justice theory?
Wouldn’t both side be better off if the right gave in on social issues and the left gave in on economic issues?
This will occur through rent seeking regardless of acceptance because the wealthy who happen to be those who make good choices will be rent seeking to limit their liability under the theory thereby attempting to reduce expenditures while reducing social liberty. On the other hand the poor and those who make bad choices will wish to expand their individual liberty while maximizing the shift assets from the wealthy to them. This spirals through cycles of encouraging heavy government regulation in social and financial life while also leading to increased rent seeking and irresponsible and inefficient behavior by all!
Is this why we have the Left wanting less economic liberty and more social liberty and the Right wanting more economic liberty and less social liberty? Each is representing one side in the Social Justice theory?
Wouldn’t both side be better off if the right gave in on social issues and the left gave in on economic issues?