Doesn't Justice Need To Be Just?

I had started to type a post to put up on this blog based on some of the writings of J. Reuben Clark of the First Presidency. I will post that in a couple of days. But I decided today to write something different based on an experience I had earlier this week. The other night I spent some time reading an online article, and pages of reader commentary that it generated, by one who was advocating for the concept of Social Justice.

For those who are not familiar with the term, social justice is the idea of uniformity in society characterized by the elimination of class distinctions. There are no rich, nor poor, and the benefits and hardships of society are equally distributed among all. It is an idea of economic egalitarianism. It is also a rallying cry of progressives and socialists.

The author of the article, who is a University professor and a good man, was articulate and well reasoned. He was coherent in his arguments for the need to achieve social justice, and the idea that government was the instrument by which it could be attained. I respect the sincerity of the author and the spirit in which the article was written. It is clear to me that the opinions of the author were genuine and based on a Christian desire for the welfare of the less fortunate among us. I also agree with the desirability of achieving a just society such as was found in the City of Enoch.

But I disagree strongly with much of the premise of the article, and with the ideas included in the comments the article generated. The article was based on a popular idea, one that is common among much of the political left that social justice is to be attained through government policy. While I may not be as gifted and concise in writing and outlining an argument as the author of the article, I still wanted to share my thoughts about the idea of government taxation and distribution as a means of achieving social equality.

I believe that the concept of social justice, as it is popularly viewed in the world today, begins to unravel because it is not actually rooted in justice. Justice cannot exist if property is being forcefully taken from one and given to another. If a man toils to gain increase, the fruit of his labor belongs to him. Measures that would strip that man of a portion of his increase are not aligned with the concept of justice.

I believe that the idea of true “social justice” can only exist as a result of righteousness. As far as social equality is concerned, there are two elements of righteousness that must exist for it to take place. First, mankind must learn to put off selfishness and develop true charity. With charity, the pure love of Christ, in his heart, man will look upon those who stand in need of assistance and give to them willingly, out of a sense of compassion and love. A charitable person is not compelled to do for others, he does so as a byproduct of the Christ-like attribute he has developed within.

Second, social justice cannot be achieved until men are righteous to the degree that each exercises self-sufficiency to the full measure of their ability. There are some in our society who are content to live off the labor of others. Whether this comes as a result of laziness, a misplaced sense of entitlement, or any other reason, it is an obstacle to achieving equality and justice in our society and it is a form of wickedness. When possessions are taken from he who earned it and given to one who did not earn it, but was capable of so doing, justice is not present.

The presence of these two elements of righteousness, charity and self-sufficiency, are essential to real justice and equality in society. We read in the scriptures of two examples where Zion societies were achieved; the City of Enoch and the Nephite nation described in Fourth Nephi. In both of these cases the society that was achieved was the direct result of righteousness. I assert that the righteousness of these peoples included both the element of charity and self-sufficiency. It was not the product of government intervention.

I believe that real social justice can only attained by following this pattern. Efforts to achieve social justice through any kind of redistributive measures cannot succeed. There is an inherent problem with government and social policies enacted to achieve social justice and universal equality. Since righteousness cannot be legislated or forced upon man, neither then can the fruits of righteousness be enjoyed as a consequence of government mandate. There are several problems that arise when a government attempts to force equality in society.

First, the equalization must, of necessity, be a downward equalization. Government does not have the power to lift everyone to an equal economic position. It simply does not have the means. Government does not and cannot create wealth. It can only take wealth from her citizens through some means such as taxation. If government forces someone to live below the level that their talent and ability can produce, justice is thwarted. One can justly volunteer to part with the fruits of his accomplishment, but it must be a product of his own free will, not as a result of taxation and redistribution. Therefore, forced downward equalization is inconsistent with justice.

Second, the confiscating of a man’s wealth to give to others does not build charity within that man. Charity can only be developed through the free act of giving to others. It must be a choice. Mankind was created to act, not to be acted upon. A man who is forced to give is no more acting out of charity than the man who does not give at all. A government may enact laws to prevent men from performing evil acts (ie murder, robbery, assault, etc.), but its power can only go so far as to punish evil actions that infringe on the rights of others, it cannot force righteous actions. Just as preventing a man from committing murder does not take the murder out of his heart, forcing a man to give to others cannot instill charity in his heart.

Third, when government provides for the welfare of individuals through redistributive policies, those who are inclined to take without earning are both placated and reinforced in their behavior. There is no incentive for the slothful man to rise each morning to earn his living when the government is willing to simply provide for his needs. In this way many of the social programs that exist today, even though instituted with the best of intentions, increase dependency on government and perpetuate a sense of entitlement among the people. Now, there is no doubt that there are those among us who, through disease, accident, or other extreme misfortune are not capable of supporting themselves. What of these? I believe it is the responsibility of men, not government, to take care of them. Families, church groups, and private organizations can and do exist to care for the truly needy, and these organizations do so through the voluntary contribution of men and women, not through forced redistribution. This is the righteous application of charity in society. This is lifting others through the exercise of free-will.

Fourth, I believe the very act of government confiscation and redistribution prevents the true development of charity in the hearts of men. Why would a man look to step outside of himself to lift another if the very institutions of government have stepped in to usurp that role for him? This is reminiscent of Ebenezer Scrooge before being visited by the three spirits. Recall how, when approached to donate to charity, he asked, “are there not poor houses?” He explained that he had paid his taxes, so he was absolved of the need to help further.

Another way the interference of government in the care of the needy makes it difficult to develop charity is found in the scriptural fact that there must be opposition in all things. Can a man become selfless if he does not also have the option to be selfish? How can selfishness be overcome if you are not allowed to selfishly retain your possessions? Perhaps this argument seems counterintuitive, but ponder it for a moment. When God rejected Lucifer’s plan, which was essentially to force all men to be righteous by not allowing them to be wicked, He preserved for mankind the right to be wicked if they chose to be so. That is the whole concept of agency. The only way for a man to become righteous is to deliberately choose to reject wickedness. You do not become like God by default.

Unquestionably it is desirable to achieve a society in which there is true equality. It likewise was desirable that all of God’s children return to His presence after their experience in mortality. The desirability of an outcome does not justify the method by which the outcome is achieved. In other words, the ends do not justify the means. If it were so, Lucifer’s plan would have been acceptable. If it were so, the government could become an agent of social justice and achieve equality through forceful distribution. But it is not so. Man must achieve righteousness by overcoming wickedness and choosing the better way. Man must acquire charity through overcoming self. We will return to God through the righteous exercise of our agency, and equality in society will be achieved, as it was in Enoch’s day, only as individuals exercise their agency to become both charitable and self-sufficient.

The great lie of Lucifer’s plan was that the whole intent was to bring the children of God back to His presence. It was not. The real objective was for Lucifer to attain power. The great irony is that his plan never could have succeeded in exalting man. The very nature of his method would make it impossible for us to become like God, for it would have stripped us of the agency needed to choose righteousness rather than having it thrust upon us. We could not have progressed by experience and overcoming opposition.

In a similar sense, some of those who advocate for government control in the equalization of society are not sincere in their intent. Rather than seeking the welfare of mankind, they seek control of man through fostering dependency and centralizing all power of the lives of citizens in the government. Therefore mankind becomes beholden to government for all they possess. (NOTE: I do not suggest that all those who advocate for social justice or adhere to left-leaning political philosophies and support government social programs fall into such a category. I believe there are a great many who support such proposals because they believe it is the best way to care for the poor and needy. Although I don’t agree with these people, I don’t disparage them or feel they are not honorable and well-meaning individuals. But there are those, especially in positions of power, who are not honorable or sincere in their advocacy of government derived social justice.)

I believe there is also a great irony in the idea of social justice as held by the political left. While the mechanisms of social justice are intended to achieve equality and a righteous society such as was found amongst the Nephites, they can never succeed in that endeavor. If such a society can only be achieved through the principles of righteousness (including charity and self-sufficiency), and if government cannot force righteousness upon her citizens, government mandated societal justice will never be more than a poor counterfeit of Zion.