This book isn’t quite the violent beat-down of the Sojourners guys that David Chilton’s was, but it’s close. It was a pointed response back then; it is a desperate cry today. As church groups are falling, or about to fall, to Social Justice, Nash’s words are worth hearing.
Ask a social Justice Warrior what Justice is. Do it. It’s quite funny. Nash begins with Aristotle. Not that Aristotle is great, but his discussions are as good as any.
The ancient (and most simple) definition of justice is “giving each one what she is due” (Nash 29). The problem is obvious: there is no way you can take this correct definition and deduce an entire economics program from it.
Universal justice: a person is just in the universal sense if he possesses all of the virtues. The Bible echoes this in Gen. 6:9 and Ezek. 18:5.
Particular justice: a man is just in this sense if he does not grasp for more than what he is due. Nash, following Aristotle, sees three subsets of this justice:
(1) commercial justice: just weights and balances.
(2) remedial justice: some wrong must be made right.
(3) distributive justice: a good or burden is apportioned among human beings (Nash 31).
Formal Principle of Justice: We can summarize Aristotle: equals should be treated equally and unequals unequally. Unfortunately, there is no criterion to help us.
Material Principle of Justice: this is usually seen in needs, deserts, achievement, etc.
Two Contemporary Theories of Justice
Rawls: (a) each person has a right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with others’ basic liberties; (b) justice as fairness
To make his project work Rawls says everyone must assume a “veil of ignorance.” In other words, you have to imagine a society where any rights you give yourself wouldn’t conflict with others’ rights. The problem with this, as Nash notes, is we have no reason to think that anyone would come up with this veil of ignorance. The veil of ignorance idea isn’t bad, per se; we just have no reason for believing it. Anyway, there is no reason to think it is just (42ff).
As other critics have pointed out, any invention in society (like the automobile) has the potential to make 95% of society more affluent, yet it would marginalize a few. Therefore, cars are unjust. But no one will seriously live this way. The automobile would impoverish the horse-and-buggy industry. Should we get rid of automobiles?
The liberal confuses economic merit with moral merit
Justice and the Welfare State
Problem with interventionism: “The liberal’s obsession with the proper distribution of society’s goods blinds him to a crucial truth: that before society can have enough gooods to distribute among the needy, a sufficient quantity of goods must be produced. By focusing all their attention on who gets what, defenders of the welfare state promote policies that severely restrict production” (64).
Justice and the Bible
We can’t confuse Love and Justice. The state is an agent of justice, and states by definition are coercive.
Problems with enacting the Year of Jubilee today:
a) Not all poor would be helped. If you didn’t own land prior, then you aren’t getting any today.
b) Only Israelite slaves are freed. Tough luck to anyone else.
c) Only property outside the city would be affected. Sold property within the walled city would become permanent exchange after a year.
d) Immigrants did not have permanent land rights, so they wouldn’t be helped.
e) Those who were born after the Jubilee but died before it wouldn’t be helped.
Quotes of Liberty
“Social justice, as viewed by statist proponents…is possible only in a society controlled from the top down” (50).
In terms of content and prophetic witness, the book is magnificent. However, much of it is a summary of Rothbard and there really isn’t new content.