SoylentNews

"I will take issue with your paraphrasing of various definitions from the site you linked."

I'm sorry but you appear to be mistaken, I did not paraphrase from the various definitions, I skipped down past them and directly excerpted that authors own words. The ones he came up with AFTER reviewing the definitions from around the net.

No. I'm sorry. I did miss the bit to which you refer. It was in this paragraph (with emphasis added) [socialjusticesolutions.org]:

While it’s definition varies depending on the source common themes that exist across them all are the ideas of: human rights; dignity; political, economical, social, and other equality; equal distribution of resources; justice; use of policy and laws; removing inequality; societal participation in change; personal responsibility; and creating access to opportunity and chance through action. With the above in mind it becomes evident why Social Justice is a key value of social work, as indicated both by the NASW’s Code of Ethics and by the International Federation of Social Worker’s Definition of Social Work.

And yes, that one phrase "equal distribution of resources" is included there. However, you didn't quote the whole paragraph which gives context to that phrase. Specifically:

personal responsibility; and creating access to opportunity and chance through action.

That context gives a more nuanced meaning, I think.

Regardless, it seems odd to reject as Marxist/collectivist an entire set of ideas (which have been defined in various, but similar, ways at various times) focused on equality and liberty for all on that one phrase. But we all take meaning where and how we find it.

I find it a little disingenuous of you to leave out the direct references to "personal responsibility" and "creating access to opportunity," as those are critical aspects of societies that have liberty and equality.

That said, I'm not going to defend the author's word choices or her sincerity. You'll have to judge that for yourself.

What's more, I went ahead and read the short essays linked [socialjusticesolutions.org] from the page you linked in an effort to find any of this "redefinition" and "collectivist/marxist ideology" of which you speak. I didn't find it. Quite the opposite, in fact. I believe that my fluency in English is quite good and, while I did miss that one phrase, I've read through this stuff several times now and have been unable to identify these things.

You say that

But I'm very concerned with it, in a context of social justice, because that means we're talking about *legally mandating* this. In that context it becomes contradictory to a higher principle - freedom of association. The only way you could mandate social equality without violating freedom of association would be if everyone is already there. At which point a mandate would be utterly superfluous.

I'm not really sure what you're getting at. Unless you're referring to the Fourteenth Amendment's [cornell.edu] Privileges and Immunities clause.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

What's more, while the First Amendment [cornell.edu] doesn't make specific reference to freedom of association, the SCOTUS confirmed that freedom of association is an essential component of the freedom of expression [wikipedia.org] guaranteed by the First Amendment in NAACP v. Alabama [wikipedia.org].

So I'm not sure where you get the idea that *any* legal mandate WRT freedom of association is possible in the United States. As such, I hope this has put those concerns to rest.

Absolutely, but again, let's not lose track of the distinction between society and government. Society is formed by consensual association. Government is the power to force. They are opposites. If you use force to compel people to associate unwillingly, that's not society any longer, it's not consensual, it's not an improvement. So at that level you do have to choose one or the other - equality or liberty. Equality or consent. I think, and it sounds like you may even agree, that equality must be judged the lesser value and give way in that case.

I understand your point, but I can't agree.

Firstly, society [dictionary.com] is the sum of people, cultures and institutions living together. Societies can, and do, take many forms. However, in every case (with the exception of a mob, which could be considered a society if one wishes to stretch the definition) a society, whether it be narrow (e.g., The Society of Illustrators [societyillustrators.org], The Society of Women Engineers [swe.org], The Society of Friends [quaker.org], etc.) or broad (e.g., American Society [wikipedia.org], Western Society [wikipedia.org], etc.) has some form of governance [wikipedia.org].

Without such governance to provide the force of law and decision making at various levels, society would fall apart, which has happened repeatedly throughout history. In the United States, we created that governance to be by consent of the governed. Which, IMHO, is quite enlightened and, while it can have its vicissitudes, has been stable for almost 250 years. Not a bad run.

Is American governance perfect? No. Does it provide the structures that can create the conditions conducive to liberty and equality for all? Yes. Does it, in fact, do so well? No.

Given the fact that those in the US have freedom of movement, freedom of expression, widespread distribution of the political franchise and, to a fair degree, the due process of law, it seems ridiculous to claim that your local government, your state government or the Federal government imposes its will upon you at the point of a gun.

Don't like local ordinances? Write an op-ed for your local paper. No one will come and arrest/shoot you for that.

Become/support a candidate who will change such ordinances. Any shooting or threats to be killed then? I think not.

Don't get satisfaction/results from the above efforts? Move to another town. Are there men with guns ready to shoot you if you try to leave? Please.

The same goes for state and federal governments.

So. You aren't being forced to submit at the point of a gun. Rather (assuming you're in the US) you were born (or immigrated) into a society whose governance is well-defined and does not restrict you from voicing opposition, working for change or simply leaving.

Sorry. I'm not buying it.

It's a similar issue. Equality under the law is a fundamental principle that can be applied and followed, and it's non contradictory. But if we keep expanding this circle of abstractions a bit we can make it very contradictory. By the time we get to equality of outcome we have something entirely different. There is no way you can guarantee equality of outcome while still respecting equality under the law, for instance. Think about that for a moment. Equality under the law implies (and requires) respect for individuals in their right to make their own choices and live with the consequences of those choices. Equality of outcome (unless held strictly subordinate to fundamental rights) is deeply incompatible with that respect for the individual.

Again, I'm not sure what you're saying here, except as a means to inject "equality of outcomes" which we both (and the folks on the original website you linked) don't support.

The way the game seems to work is that first they put the two on the same plane, and then they use the latter to destroy the former.

I hear you. But again, that leads me back to the question I asked earlier in the larger journal discussion: Who is this "they" you're talking about? I assume you're not referring to this guy [sfgate.com].

Jokes aside, I'm really interested to understand to whom you are ascribing that goal. I think you'll find that there are very few in the US who support that concept, and even fewer who would be willing to admit it.

I think it more likely that such a "group" is a fiction promulgated to sow division between us all in an effort to either profit, advance an agenda that the vast majority of us would reject, or both.

Again, your thoughts and comments are most welcome, sir.