Can Social Justice Be Defined?

As we have stated more than once on this blog, we like to get questions or criticisms . . . questions or criticisms that we can answer, that is.  Okay, polite questions or criticisms that we can answer. . . . like this one, from someone we had sent some links to recent blog postings:

Chesterton and Shaw: The Idea of Distributism

In the previous posting on this subject, we closed by noting that a realistic vision of a just society should present a viable alternative to capitalism, characterized by concentration of capital ownership in the hands of a relatively small private sector élite, and socialism, characterized by concentration of capital ownership in the hands of a public bureaucracy.  Distributism, a policy of widely distributed private property with a preference for small, family owned farms and artisan businesses, appeared to be one possibility.

Why is Socialism Wrong?

Many people these days assume that if they can find a precedent or some statement that they can twist into meaning what they want or need it to mean, that they have discovered a new right or truth, conveyed to them by whatever they worship as God and to be understood in the light of faith alone.  Such people forget (if they ever knew) that truth is objective reality.  Their own perceptions and beliefs are, on the other hand, subjective.  As we saw in the previous posting on this subject, nowhere has this tendency been more evident than in the ongoing effort to reformulate or repurpose Christianity as a form of socialism.

Mortimer Adler on Happiness

Today we take a look at Mortimer J. Adler's take on the question of happiness.  Adler, who co-authored The Capitalist Manifesto (1958) and The New Capitalists (1961) with Louis O. Kelso, is considere4d by many to be the premier American Aristotelian of the twentieth century.  In this half-hour video clip, we take a look at Adler's take on what Aristotle meant by "happiness," which seems to be a concept that is greatly misunderstood these days:

News from the Network, Vol. 12, No. 23

There have been a number of interesting developments this past week relating both to the development of the concept of social justice and to its application to address some current situations:

Rebranding Socialism as True Christianity

As we saw in the previous posting on this subject, Robert Owen believed that all of humanity’s problems would disappear if religion, marriage, and private property were abolished.  In 1813 in A New View of Society he declared that reorienting religion from worshiping God to bettering the condition of humanity would be sufficient to establish and maintain the perfect world.

Chesterton and Shaw: The Modernist World

As we saw in the previous posting on this subject, George Bernard Shaw was as insistent that socialism is the universal panacea for all problems (as long as you don’t eat meat or drink alcohol) and that distributism is just another name for Fabian socialism* as G.K. Chesterton was adamant that Shaw was full of . . . nonsense.

Religion Without God

As we saw in the previous posting on this subject, Robert Owen, the Father of Modern Socialism (and Communism) wanted to establish and maintain a perfect society in this life, a constant theme of socialism for the past two centuries and more.  Since he believed that people are formed entirely by their environment, all that is necessary to create the perfect society (so he claimed) is to abolish religion, marriage, and private property.  Everything will then be perfect.

Interview with Joe Recinos, Part II (and I)

This week we bring you the second part of an interview with Joseph W. Recinos, the Latin America Director of the Center for Economic and Social Justice.  Just so you don’t have to search out the first half, we’ve included that, also.

News from the Network, Vol. 12, No. 22

Not as many news items as last week, but there are still significant events going on, especially as the powers-that-be insist on ignoring the Just Third Way:

A New View of Society

As we saw in the previous posting on this subject, modern socialism (which includes Marxist communism) traces its roots to the thought of Robert Owen.  Owen’s theories anticipated the modern Welfare State as well as the drift into secularism, the deification of the abstraction of humanity, the decay of marriage and family, and a host of other ills attendant upon the alienation of most people from direct ownership of the means of production, and thus personal power and the means of participating as full members of society.

Chesterton and Shaw: The Last Debate

In our previous posting on this subject, we completed a brief overview of the lost debate between G.K. Chesterton and G.B Shaw.  Today we begin an equally brief summary of the last debate between the two “metaphysical jesters,” as one commentator termed them.  (William B. Furlong, GBS/GKC, Shaw and Chesterton: The Metaphysical Jesters.  University Park, Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1970.)  And so our story begins. . . .

Brothers Under the Skin

On Sunday, July 14, 1833 at Oxford University in England, the Reverend John Keble (1792-1866) ascended the University Pulpit and preached his scheduled “Assize Sermon.”  An “Assize Sermon” is preached in the Church of England at the opening of a term of the civil and criminal courts — “the Assizes” — hence the name.  The sermon is officially addressed to the judges and officers of the court and is intended to exhort them to do their duty and render justice.

Interview with Joe Recinos, Part I

This week we bring you the first part of an interview with Joseph W. Recinos, the Latin America Director of the Center for Economic and Social Justice.  Joe, a development economist, is a volunteer, and a co-founder of CESJ.

News from the Network, Vol. 12, No. 21

A lot has been going on this week, not the least of which is the annual conference of the ESOP Association in Washington, DC (which we may report on next week, as it is still in progress).  The bottom line?  Let’s cut to the chase and get to the news items:

Chesterton and Shaw: “A Reply to Mr. Mallock”

In the previous posting on this subject we saw how early in their relationship, George Bernard Shaw had used unfair debating tricks (are there fair debating tricks?) to “win” an argument against Chesterton by deliberately changing the real point under discussion.

Austrians and Distributists

Every once in a while we get a question that we answer and then realize we’ve written a blog posting.  On Friday of last week we had such a happy occurrence.  As someone asked in a forum discussing “Thomist Philosophy,” that is, the philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas,

Chesterton and Shaw: How to Argue With a Socialist

In the previous posting on this subject, we left G.K. Chesterton smiling benignly down on an infuriated George Bernard Shaw.  Clearly Chesterton knew exactly what buttons to push to bring Shaw to a rapid boil in the shortest period of time.  The fact was that Chesterton had figured out how to handle an argument with Shaw: refuse to argue except on principle.

Just Third Way Podcast: Norman Kurland on Power

Power is a dirty word to many people today, but that's probably because most people don't have any.  As a result, they tend to define the concept in terms of power over others, rather than the idea of having power over one's own life.  That is odd, because power is defined as "ability for doing."  Unless one plans on being a pair of ragged claws at the bottom of the sea (or whatever it was that J. Alfred Prufrock thought about), power is essential simply to exist.  That is why Dr. Norman Kurland, President of the Center for Economic and Social Justice, decided to talk about power and how to structure it for the benefit of everyone, not just a few:

News from the Network, Vol. 12, No. 20

Things are a little quiet due to the fact that expanded ownership initiatives are waiting to see what comes out of the ESOP Association conference next week, but some ongoing projects are making progress, and of course there are more personal matters: