We hear the term ”Social Justice” being used regularly today. What does it mean? And why isn’t the word justice sufficient on it’s own? Why the need for a modifier? The traditional definition of the word Justice is:

1. fairness: fairness or reasonableness, especially in the way people are treated or decisions are made
2. system or application of law: the legal system, or the act of applying or upholding the law
3. validity: validity in law

In order to enforce fairness in a given context you have to have authority or control over that context. If you want to enforce fairness in a conversation you must be able to control the amount of time each side can speak, what types of things they can say, and with what tone and delivery they may use. Otherwise if there is no control over these things the conversation can become unfair and one side my dominate by making better arguments, using a more persuasive tone. If you want to have a truly fair playground you have to control what games are played, which children can play with each other and for how long, and so forth.

In this country we try diligently to have justice in our courtrooms when people are being tried for a crime. This requires a massive set of rules so that each side the things that enables them to present their case but restricts them from gaining any unfair advantage over the other party. Statements must be made at certain times, and in certain ways, and they must not include certain things. Evidence may only be admitted into the proceedings if they adhere to rigid guidelines prior to being introduced and are found relevant in very specific ways. The courtroom is a very authoritarian environment where the law and the judge are the ultimate authority. This is appropriate because the matter at hand is: Determining the freedom of an individual. But would this same environment be appropriate if the matter at hand was: What should be your place of employment? Or, What kind of home you should live in?

Van Jones (former head of Green Jobs for President Obama) recently defined Social Justice.

Social Justice to him means: “All people have equal outcomes regarding how good their life ends up AND all people have equal chance to have a good life.” This means first that every child would need to be born into a home where parents have similar values and priorities as other parents. Where incomes would be similar. And children would be taught under ideal circumstances so they would learn to be similarly efficient across a similar range of topics and skills so that they would all have an “equal chance to have a good life.”

This is called Utopia and is impossible to achieve in a world inhabited by imperfect and unique beings such as humans.

Is it fair that I can afford piano lessons for all of my kids when the vast majority of children cannot? Is it fair that I cannot afford to send my children to Harvard or Yale? Is it fair that some people are overweight? Is it fair that some people do not have cable television? Does having cable television enable you to have a “good life?” Does sending your children to Harvard?

To address the problem as Van Jones and others see it we must accomplish three impossible tasks:

First, we must define what is meant by “A GOOD LIFE.” Is a good life a rich one where you have boats, and cars, and fine food? Or is a good life a middle income one where one must budget and save for that 20 year anniversary cruise. One where kids have to get jobs and help save for college. Or is a good life one that is somewhat poor? One where young minds are spared from mindless television and ingrained with the necessity of hard work and frugality? Is a good life the same as being happy? Is a good life one with religion or without? And do all religions give you an “equal chance to have a good life?”

Second, once we have defined a good life we must develop a plan that will enforce a world wherein everyone has an equal chance at it. A plan that will sufficiently control the families into which we are born, and the homes in which we grow and mature, and the jobs in which we succeed, and the spouses which we court, and the families into which we bring our next generation.

Third, once we have the plan, we must have the authority and power to implement the plan, and the competency to do so with success! Of course we are talking about the government. No other body has anywhere near the resources and reach and police power which would be required for such a program.

Of course the problem with this all is that in doing the above three tasks we have raped ourselves of our freedom. A plan such as this could never be conceived or implemented without striping ourselves of our liberty and property. The plan would likely even have to go so far as to stomp on our uniqueness as human beings and require us to play the role of automaton for the supposed greater good of fairness and equality.

Could “a good life” possibly be achieved under these conditions of slavery?

The magic of the human experience is that it is not fair; it is not equal in the ultimate sense of the word. It is precisely this diversity of experience that provides us the richness that allows each of us as free individuals to find, make, and realize our own “good life” as we chose to define it. Liberty gives people the equal chance at it Van Jones desires. We should seek to increase liberty wherever it is restrained; whether it be through oppression, ignorance, illness, or evil creeds. The human spirit when empowered through liberty will create a “good life” in a myriad of ways that no bureaucrat could possibly imagine and by so doing they enrich the world for us all by creating new possibilities upon which we all may build. Power lies in liberty – there is and never has been a substitute.

The human being has an infinite capacity for desiring more. This is both good and dangerous. This desire motivates our ambition and compels us to innovate and find better ways to live our lives. However, this powerful force can trick us into always being fixated on what we do not have and take for granted that which we do have. Being fixated in such a way acts as a cancer to our ability to be grateful and gratitude is the supreme attribute that determines our happiness.

How do we then remain in control of these forces and allow them to enrichen our lives without sabotaging our joy? I would like to offer one answer I have used in my life to my great benefit.

In my youth (during college to be specific) a friend told me to define success for myself and write it down. He told me to be specific; answer the questions that I think mattered for me to perceive myself as being successful. How much money would I make? What kind of car would I drive? What kind of family would I have? How big would my yard be; would I have a dog; where would I travel; what would my habits be – and on and on. So I did. I tried to be as specific as possible. I defined all sorts of things, many you would expect, some you wouldn’t and some that even seem silly in hindsight. I wrote it all down in my journal when I was about 24 years old.

Now, almost a decade and a half later, I look back and review the list (and have done so many times) I have been able to check-off items on the list as they were accomplished. My list, which filled multiple pages, now has the majority of items checked. Some items that required a bit of faith to accomplish – have a son – have a daughter – marry a wonderful woman that would be a good mother and amazing spouse – are now all checked. Others that simply required planning are also checked – own a brand new car – go on a cruise. And some that to many might seem silly – own a house that allows me to put up a Christmas tree in the front room so it can be seen from the street outside – but give me much joy are also checked.

I still want more, lots more, and I won’t stop striving for it all. But having this list has protected me from the unconscious impulse to continually move my target for success and thereby never obtain it. This definition of success which I made back in college has enabled me to experience much happiness: first in knowing what I am striving for, second in watching myself accomplish certain things, and also (and perhaps most important) keep clear in my mind the distinction between those things that I need (subjectively) and those things that I want above and beyond; and all the while not allow the things I still want to rob me of the joy in the things that I declared I needed and have subsequently obtained.