Thursday, May 6, 2010

And Justice For All (Leftists)

When it comes to controversial statements, Rev. Al Sharpton is Michael Jordan. Lately, he's been caught making another controversial statement regarding a favorite Leftist buzzword: social justice.

Let's stop for a moment and really consider Sharpton's statement. If he's right, social justice means that everything is "equal in everybody's house." The problem? Not everybody is equal. I can't shoot a basketball like Lebron James, but under Sharpton's notion of social justice, I could claim half of his wealth because it would make things equal for the two of us.

Ah, but then there's old Mrs. Johnson, the elderly woman down the street living off Social Security. She could lay claim to Lebron and my fortunes as a means to make things equal for all three of us.

Then, there's George Clooney. Certainly we could take a portion of his wealth and split it among the three of us to make us all equal. He might object, but if he did, he's simply not committed to social justice, is he?

Now, repeat this process a few billion times, once for each American. The logistics alone make it difficult to meet Sharpton's lofty-sounding goal. And we haven't even gotten into the different talents everybody has that would make equality for all under social justice impossible. Surely, Sharpton has to realize that we can't ever be equal, right? Some would say that's debatable, but I'm willing to give Sharpton the benefit of the doubt for one reason: it fits in perfectly with the Leftist logical narrative.

The Left starts off with a problem and attaches a meaningless, nice-sounding slogan to it as a means to promote their "solution" for the problem. Take the "living wage" debate, for example. Leftists see people not making ends meet, so they blame companies for not paying their workers enough. Their solution: pay each worker enough so they can live. Hence, the "living wage" concept was born.

Ah, but what if a man is poor because he prefers to spend his money on alcohol, gambling, or sex? The Left doesn't really take that into consideration. The Left sees that as the fault of the company that hires him to make widgets all day. If only they were more concerned about paying their workers more instead of making profits, that poor man could afford to buy food for his family!

But really, I'm guessing he's going to use that extra money for more booze, gambling, and sex. Just a hunch...

What the Left sets up is a self-perpetuating problem. Even if companies relent and start paying their employees a living wage, that amount may eventually change, and I'm guessing it won't ever go down if the Left has anything to say about it. After all, the living wage has to adapt to changes in the economy, or else the poor victims of Big Business's greed will be forced out on the street!

And it only gets worse from there. Leftists will keep pushing the "living wage" higher and higher as long as people relent because they created an expectation that they demand others meet, but that they never expect themselves to meet. After all, they're the poor victims, so they should be allowed to partake in the lion's share of the spoils. And as long as there are people willing to fork over cash, the problem will never go away.

When it comes to social justice, the same principle applies. Things will never be equal, but as long as the Al Sharptons of the world keep dangling a carrot in front of people willing to believe in it, social justice will continue to be a problem that they will exploit and exempt themselves from simultaneously.

Of course, maybe Sharpton would be willing to give up some of his finery to help people. When he does, maybe his social justice rant will have some meat to it. But something tells me he won't. Just a hunch...

No comments: