The concept of social justice

To this day, one of the first questions I'm asked when people get to know me is how I can hold two seemingly disparate viewpoints: libertarianism and social justice. These concepts seem far apart through our cultural lens. For too long, the right has addressed itself only to the rich and the middle class. Very few republican nominees have ever mentioned the poor in the debates. What liberals hate about our philosophy is the perceived social darwinism in letting everyone fend for themselves.

To me, this strikes me as similar to arguments about religion and morality. Said the believer to the atheist: if you remove religion, there would be no morality. Here, if you remove the government from helping people, then no one would help. Both of these arguments are spurious. The flaw is the same in both arguments--that morality is intrinsic to our species. It is a profoundly human characteristic which mediates most behavior. People genuine want to help each other. Most people do this every day without really thinking about it.

When a government gets involved in a market, especially one like conditional and unconditional charitable aid, the market becomes distorted. The attitude that the government will take care of those in need (in return for an ever-increasing price) separates the person giving from a. having to know anything about the problem b. caring about its solution and c. gives them a philosophy that social ills are not "my" problem, but "our" problem. Help in its purest form is stifled in the status quo.

It irritates me to no end that when talking about the social programs designed to help people, it is never questioned that the government must be the source of funding, planning, and often implementation. Sometimes, we can get private entities in on the implementation part (like Medicaid providers), but that's about it.

Matt Zwolinski's book has been extremely helpful in one way in particular. It is the first place I've really encountered someone talking about competition in the marketplace of charity. The benefits of competition and choice are immense. As a social worker, if the agencies my clients depended on were subject to market forces, they would become unbelievably different to work with. Imagine, instead of The System, one would be able to choose between different insurance plans, conditional or unconditional aid programs, charitable programs at hospitals and churches, and low-cost housing.

Competition would improve the responsiveness of the organization to its clients; whereas, a government run or government-dominated system allows none or few competitors, reducing efficiency and client satisfaction while increasing bureaucracy and rent-seeking.

Knowing all of this stuff has also lead me to be a way better social worker, as well. Part of the libertarian perspective that is so invaluable in social work is its focus on the individual (rather than groups). Although social work is definitely concerned with groups as well, the individual level is--at the end--the unit level of a much larger system. Is it a moral action to have a person submit to our current social welfare system? Can a system set up like ours ever get better, let alone adequately serve its interests?

Another day, another time I have to commiserate with a client about DC government services.