Difference between SJW and Social Justice in CCC

[blackforest]

I haven’t read the whole thread. But the short answer is that there is no difference. One is term is pejorative and mocking, and the other reflects adherence to Roman Catholic Social Teaching.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

Subsidiarity. Folks keep bringing this up.

Can we have an honest discussion about this principle? It is not a useful defense for a position that is against all government intervention.

The Church’s position corrects and limits. It does not preclude.

1883 Socialization also presents dangers. Excessive intervention by the state can threaten personal freedom and initiative. The teaching of the Church has elaborated the principle of subsidiarity, according to which "a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co- ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good."7

Government should be working with the rest of society (eg private charities and community organizations) in pursuit of the common good.

 

[MikeInVA]

It is not a useful defense for a position that is against all government intervention.

Why? Must we accept government intervention? Is there no other way to help people than through government programs?

 

[mrsdizzyd]

mrsdizzyd:

It is not a useful defense for a position that is against all government intervention.

Why? Must we accept government intervention? Is there no other way to help people than through government programs?

All of this I NEVER said.

Instead of creating straw men, let’s focus on an honest discussion of the CCC’s words regarding subsidiarity.

 

[Vonsalza]

Subsidiarity. Folks keep bringing this up.

Can we have an honest discussion about this principle? It is not a useful defense for a position that is against all government intervention.

The Church’s position corrects and limits. It does not preclude.

1883 Socialization also presents dangers. Excessive intervention by the state can threaten personal freedom and initiative. The teaching of the Church has elaborated the principle of subsidiarity, according to which "a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co- ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good."7

The only hesitation I have for this sort of system is that there is indeed something less efficient than government spending - it’s private-public partnerships.

I’m of a mind that the feds ought to pay for and run fed programs, states ought to pay for and run state programs, local governments should do the same. Intermixing them should be discrete events (say, like a disaster strikes Kansas or something) rather than continuous and open ended (like Medicaid).

I just think the tiers of government should at least attempt to stay as separate as possible. Naive I may be.

 

[abucs]

I think the trick is to try and leverage the mechanism of government while at the same time trying to limit its power. I haven’t heard anyone yet suggest a concrete way to do this. I like the idea of subsidiarity but it appears a little vague.

Perhaps the free market is an example a subsidiarity.

 

[Vonsalza]

I think the trick is to try and leverage the mechanism of government while at the same time trying to limit its power. I haven’t heard anyone yet suggest a concrete way to do this. I like the idea of subsidiarity but it appears a little vague.

Perhaps the free market is an example a subsidiarity.

The problem with the free market solution to aid is that there’s no economic incentive to help poor people. The money to do it has got to come from somewhere besides them and the obvious answer is through taxes - either by reallocating (direct assistance that Democrats tend to like) or by deducting those expenses from taxes a la 501(c)3 (like most Republicans prefer).

As stated, I have a severe dislike for ongoing private-public partnerships. When we let that money slide over to private books, regardless the controls put in, we’re vulnerable to all sorts of private ills like embezzlement and mismanagement in a way that’s too easy for them to hide.

The obvious counter is that the government simply contracts with someone else to perform the service in the next budget, but it usually becomes a continuous cycle of swapping between the same partners when one runs into cost-overruns. Boeing to Lockheed back to Boeing back to Lockheed.

At least public offices are generally held more accountable for the management of their funds and tracked in a way where we can usually find who/what screwed up and, if needed, prosecute. But you can’t jail a private business owner for mismanaging funds unless you can absolutely prove wrong intent. Which is a hard bar to reach in a system where they’re presumed innocent.

 

[Theo520]

I guess I’m a heretic that thinks national issues should be delt with at the national level. Silly me.

“I can do no other”.

No, your thinking just doesn’t represent reality here.
Medicaid is run by the states, not the feds. Feds help but the lower level of govt has responsibility.

Taking it away from state control contravenes the very sound principles of subsidiarity.

Subsidiarity recognizes that every location will not have equal solutions to the problem, but the benefits of local responsibility outweigh the harms.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

I guess I’m a heretic that thinks national issues should be delt with at the national level. Silly me.

“I can do no other”.

No, your thinking just doesn’t represent reality here.
Medicaid is run by the states, not the feds. Feds help but the lower level of govt has responsibility.

I know, but the feds fund it. Federal Medicaid funding makes up a sizable portion of The Commonwealth of Kentucky’s annual receipts.

Taking it away from state control contravenes the very sound principles of subsidiarity.

I don’t advocate that. I just think the locus of control and provider of the funding should be congruent.

 

[Theo520]

I know, but the feds fund it. Federal Medicaid funding makes up a sizable portion of The Commonwealth of Kentucky’s annual receipts.

The feds provide some of the funding, not all of it. That States have skin in the game is very important and drives innovation in delivery and management of costs. Just spending other people’s money almost never delivers efficacy.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

I know, but the feds fund it. Federal Medicaid funding makes up a sizable portion of The Commonwealth of Kentucky’s annual receipts.

The feds provide some of the funding, not all of it. That States have skin in the game is very important and drives innovation in delivery and management of costs. Just spending other people’s money almost never delivers efficacy.

I agree that it’s also state funded. Joint venture. But how much this causes states to “innovate” is pretty questionable. A 1st party spending its own money is more efficient. A 1st party spending the money of a 2nd party is less so.

It’s through the state Medicaid system than one could argue the feds “fund” abortion.

 

[MonteRCMS]

Don’t take Vonsalza seriously …

In his or her own words:

Vonsalza6d MonteRCMS
MonteRCMS:
Vonsalza:
I think arguing is intellectual play. I’ve always liked it.
Thank you. Clarifies a few things.
And what is that, may I ask?

 

[Vonsalza]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[TheLittleLady]

Agree, as does Catholic teaching (the article is too lengthy to post, and the footnotes will add more light)

CCC 1897 "Human society can be neither well-ordered nor prosperous unless it has some people invested with legitimate authority to preserve its institutions and to devote themselves as far as is necessary to work and care for the good of all."1

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c2a2.htm

 

[phil19034]

SJW is a derogatory term used by the right to denigrate those of differing views.

I wouldn’t necessarily say this. Because I have witnessed liberal left people proudly call themselves Social Justice Warriors.

However, in Catholic circles, I would say “Social Justice Warriors” have a reputation (warranted or unwarranted) of putting social issues before Church teachings. For example: groups like “Nuns on the Bus” who believe in pro-choice because it’s “social justice.”

 

[Vonsalza]

It sounds like defining SJW experiences the same issues encountered when we try to lump any diverse assortment of people into one group.

Broad brushes and such.

 

[TheLittleLady]

Ask someone to define “Social Justice” and you will know with 98.7% accuracy how they voted.

 

[pnewton]

The difference is semantics. People have always tended toward categorization and labeling as a method of political posturing. With the internet, these trends become wider. The polarization of society increases, and those more radical on either side now more easily seize power. This time it was Donald Trump; next time it may be Bernie Sanders. Moderation is seen as weakness on both sides.

So, with social justice, we lump it together with the left, and of course, the right has to demonize it. Ideally, both sides should be able to consider each issue, and each sub-issue, individually and compromise on the best solution.

 

[phil19034]

I think Jonah Goldberg at PragerU does a fairly decent job of explaining why “social justice” is often considered to be a “left” thing (outside of Catholic circles).

I don’t necessarily agree with every single point he makes, but in general, I think he has many valid and/or interesting points. Patrick Madrid discussed this video on his show not too long ago.

https://www.prageru.com/videos/what-social-justice

God Bless.

 

[Theo520]

“While an equality of rights under a limited government is possible and an essential condition of individual freedom, a claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers.”
― Friedrich A. Hayek, The Mirage of Social Justice