You’ve heard the phrase “No Justice, No Peace”. But, what is and isn’t justice? The best definition I found was from Adam Smith (1723-1790), a Scottish political philosopher and economist, who wrote two books The Theory of Moral Sentiments and The Wealth of Nations. Smith had significant influence on our Founding Fathers – James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson. He divided moral virtue into two broad categories: justice and beneficence. He wrote that there are three rules of justice: (1) the rule to “guard the life and person of our neighbor”; (2) the rule to “guard our neighbor’s property and possessions”; and (3) the rule to “guard what are called our neighbor’s personal rights, or what is due him from the promises of others”. He called these three rules “sacred” because he believed that any society that does not respect these things, that does not enforce protection of them equally, and that does not punish infractions of them is one that is headed, sooner or later, for collapse.
The primary duty of government is the protection of justice and the rule of law, which would only be called into action upon the infringement of someone’s person, property, or promises (contracts). “Every man, as long as he does not violate the laws of justice, is left perfectly free to pursue his own interests his own way, and to bring both his industry and capital into competition with those of any other man.” These principles were incorporated in the Declaration of Independence in “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights”, the Bill of Rights, and in the Constitution’s limited role of the federal government in our lives. The principles pronounced in these documents were idealistic and not achieved in the early days of the republic but required Constitutional amendments, the Civil War, as well as many new laws to make the ideals closer to reality.
Social Justice is the government redistribution of advantages and resources to disadvantage groups (minorities, women, and LGBTQ) and to blame disparate outcomes on other groups. The ideal of justice as complete egalitarianism-everyone receives the same outcome regardless of who does what or how much, or even if they do nothing at all- is contradicted by the most elementary facts of reality. It demands that those who are more fortunate be required to contribute to those who are less fortunate. However no individual or group is entitled at birth with talents, abilities, intelligence, good country of birth, or parents wealth. These circumstances are the result of good or bad luck, not injustice. Justice should guarantee equality of opportunity to individuals, whereas Social Justice wants to guarantee equality of outcome to groups.
It is apparent that government actions, especially from Washington DC, cannot be the answer to achieving moral virtue in a society. There is substantial evidence that government helping people in need is inefficient and rarely accomplishes the goals of beneficence. For example the “War on Poverty” declared in 1964 by President Johnson was to make poor families more self sufficient. This “war” has cost over $15 trillion since 1964 but has not improved the self sufficiency of the poor. Then how do we solve the problems of helping the less fortunate? Adam Smith’s answer was beneficence which was defined as actions individuals should engage in like charity, generosity, and friendship to improve others lives through money, time, or other resources. Beneficence is always based on free will – it cannot be extorted by governmental force.
Beneficence is actually surprisingly difficult, as it is often hard to know what would constitute genuine help for another person. Think of someone begging on the street. What would constitute genuine help for such a person. Money? Food? Advice? Friendship? Nothing at all? Any of these might be required, and different circumstances will require different actions. Without detailed knowledge of the specific situations of both the recipient and the giver, we cannot know what beneficence requires in any particular case. For this reason, Smith argues that beneficence should be left to individuals based on their local knowledge and judgment.
An example of people helping people comes from the CAF World Giving Index which measured the generosity of individuals in146 countries and found that the United States was the most generous country over the last 10 years based on its willingness to help strangers, donate to charity, and volunteer their time. Under beneficence a person who chooses not to help a beggar on the street would not be guilty of a crime and subject to punishment by the government. However the person could be condemned publicly, shunned by others, or someone could write an editorial in the paper decrying the persons actions.
Justice should not favor the rich or the poor but be administered fairly. The key to helping the less fortunate are solutions crafted by individuals or private groups on a local level that truly give them a leg up, not a hand out.
