Social justice, social inclusion and non-government interference

[Asguard]

This thread is a split off from HERE. The off topic debate centered on the difference between US system of government and society and the Australian and English versions

I will post the relevant post in the second post here because it is rather a long quote

For starters a definition of social Justice

Social Justice (as opposed to legal justice) is

Social justice refers to the concept of a society in which justice is achieved in every aspect of society, rather than merely the administration of law. The term can be amorphous and refer to sometimes self-contradictory values of justice. It is generally thought of as a society which affords individuals and groups fair treatment and a just share of the benefits of society. (Different proponents of social justice have developed different interpretations of what constitutes fair treatment and a just share.) It can also refer to the distribution of advantages and disadvantages within a society.

Social justice is both a philosophical problem and an important issue in politics, religion and civil society. Most individuals wish to live in a just society, but different political ideologies have different conceptions of what a 'just society' actually is. The term "social justice" is often employed by the political left to describe a society with a greater degree of economic egalitarianism, which may be achieved through progressive taxation, income redistribution, or property redistribution. The right wing also uses the term social justice, but generally believes that a just society is best achieved through the operation of a free market, which they believe provides equality of opportunity and promotes philanthropy and charity. Both right and left tend to agree on the importance of rule of law, human rights, and some form of a welfare safety net (though the left supports this latter element to a greater extent than the right).

viewed on 24/01/08

This form of "Justice" comes not from a legal definition but from a principle based ethical viewpoint

The 4 principles in principle based ethics are
Autonomy
Beneficence
Non-maleficence
Justice

Justice in this sense is defined as:

Ethics and law for the Health care professions[/I], NSW, 2005]the standards and expectations which any society holds concerning relations between the members of that society; and the rights and services that are due any member of that society. The word "Justice" suggests concepts such as fairness, rightness and equity

It is a principle that is responsible for things like the NHS in England, Medicare in Australia and even the provision of a lawyer for people charged with crimes when they cant afford one (in the US and Australia, among a lot of other countries)

 

[Asguard]

From this thread

Asguard;1724024[/URL]]thats a sad inditment of the social worker and your system of health (mis)care

Yes there are alot of social services that can be put in place and no that case surposedly couldnt happen in the state i live in because if meals on wheels come back and the meal hasnt been eaten the police will break into the house with in 24 hours where in this case they took the nabors word.

Social justice goes hand in hand with antidecrimination. It is about making sure there are no impediments to people doing what they can legally do because they are elderly, they are gay, they are women, they are aborigional, they live in remote areas

Its not about an overt illegal descrimination but rather is concerned with passive descrimination

For example if you ban drinking in all public areas then someone specialising in social justice would be intrested in where homeless people could drink. Or people who live in remote comunities working out how to make social activities avialable to them as well as social services. Or how to keep the elderly able to be socially active inspite of the fact that they maybe medically unable to drive

Its also sometimes called social inclusion rather than social justice
BTW the "justice" doesnt refer to LEGAL justice but the ethical principle of "justice"

madanthonywayne;1724038[/URL]]People should be treated equally before the law. There should be no law that prevents people from doing what they like so long as it doesn't infringe on someone else's rights.

However, I don't think it's the government's responsibility to remove every impedement a person might face.
That just floors me. I would, perhaps, be on board in opposing such a law on the grounds that it's an unnecessary infringement of rights. Basically, my instinct is to oppose any law, until I see proof that it's absolutely necesary.
Laudable goals, but the term "justice" seems strange to me. I think in terms of only Retributive justice, not Distributive justice.

In my mind, no one has a right to social services, or to be socially active, or to an equal share of anything but what he has earned himself. You have a right to be left alone. That's really about it.

Justice from bioethics HERE

JUSTICE
Have I identified all vulnerable groups that may be affected by my action?
Is my proposed action equitable? How can I make it more equitable?

Asguard;1724055[/URL]]Justice from bioethics HERE



The probable reason that you have a problem with justice in this sense is that you grew up in America. The American policy rejecting socialism totally doesn't think to much about equity, only individual rights. The strange thing from MY point of view is what is the POINT of having individual rights to do something if there is every impediment stopping you doing it

For instance is it mandatory under the building code to have ramps and other devices installed to allow people in wheel chairs to gain access?

Are taxis and public transport forbidden from discriminating against people with guide dogs?

the governments of Australia, England. the sheep rooters, probably Canada work differently to the US.

For starters we are not afraid of government involvement, for example we even have a minister for sport. Do you? Actually since the health statistics on childhood obesity that ministry has picked up more importance.

We are also not afraid of socialism, we believe that its the government's responsibility to care for the people. The only real example of this i see in the US is legal aid in criminal cases. Is this available for civil cases as well?
it is in Australia based on the merits of the case (there IS a limit to there resources so they wont take a case they have no hope of winning)

Its not just the governments though, its all areas of life that are interested in this. For interest the SA ambulance service give a survey as part of there recruitment process to ask things like sex, background ect to make sure there is no unintended bias in there recruitment process. Universities have procedures in place to make sure that everyone can go dependent on telent rather than sex or location ect

In part its antidiscrimination laws that force them to have these sort of procedures in place but not entirely. They also do it because its the ethical thing to do

Why do you think i have such a problem with the US? Its not that i hate you its that I'm baffled as to why you don't help each other, why there is no social cohesion.

For another example, i had Opera (stupid Opera, stupid day time TV) on while i was on the computer yesterday and they were talking about saving for your retirement and how you need to put money away for super even if your company doesn't do this automatically. In Australia we have MANDITORY super paid by companies above and beyond what your wages are (i think its 7% of whatever your yearly salary is). Now as well as making sure people have money in retirement this has had the added benefit of injecting a HUGE amount of money into the stock market (think how much money that is when you take 7% of the before tax salary of all the workers in the country and dump a good % of that into the stock market). Its actually one of the reasons that our country is doing so much better than the US, because as the economy expands, more people earn more, more money goes into stocks whether people chose to invest it or not. The government is now talking about using some of that money to invest in social housing so that not only are people making money on there super but there is more rental accommodation for the lower class.

 

[madanthonywayne]

The probable reason that you have a problem with justice in this sense is that you grew up in America.

Could be. See my thread on Australia vs the US.

The American policy rejecting socialism totally doesn't think to much about equity, only individual rights. The strange thing from MY point of view is what is the POINT of having individual rights to do something if there is every impediment stopping you doing it

We believe the purpose of government is to secure the individual rights of man.

For instance is it mandatory under the building code to have ramps and other devices installed to allow people in wheel chairs to gain access?

Yes. The Americans with Disabilities act was passed by the first president Bush. I don't support it, though. While it's fine for the government to encourage those things, it's not right to force businesses to spend money on extensive renovations. One man's disability should not give him the right to another man's wallet.

Are taxis and public transport forbidden from discriminating against people with guide dogs?

Yes. And Muslim immigrants in certain parts of the country are causing a problem by refusing to provide services to such people.

For starters we are not afraid of government involvement, for example we even have a minister for sport. Do you

I don't think so. At least not as part of the government. We do have things like a Commissioner of Baseball. But he is funded privately and selected by the owners of the various teams. Congress will occasionally hold hearing on steroid use or some other tempest in a teapot issue, but nothing ever comes of it.

Actually since the health statistics on childhood obesity that ministry has picked up more importance.

Sounds like the closest thing would be the Surgeon General. He'll issue statements about obesity, puts labels warning of the dangers of smoking on cigarette packs, etc.

We are also not afraid of socialism, we believe that its the government's responsibility to care for the people.

It is not the role of government to "care for the people". That's a quite paternalistic/statist viewpoint. The role of government is to be a neutral party, to provide order, and to defend the shores.

The only real example of this i see in the US is legal aid in criminal cases. Is this available for civil cases as well?

I don't think so.

Its not just the governments though, its all areas of life that are interested in this. For interest the SA ambulance service give a survey as part of there recruitment process to ask things like sex, background ect to make sure there is no unintended bias in there recruitment process. Universities have procedures in place to make sure that everyone can go dependent on telent rather than sex or location ect

I think such policies are racist in and of themselves. Companie, universities, etc should not even gather data on race, sex, whatever. Each individual should be judged on his own merits, not on the color of his skin or whatever.

In part its antidiscrimination laws that force them to have these sort of procedures in place but not entirely. They also do it because its the ethical thing to do

Again, I'd say the ethical thing to do is to ignore race, sex, whatever.

Why do you think i have such a problem with the US? Its not that i hate you its that I'm baffled as to why you don't help each other, why there is no social cohesion.

Of course we help each other. We simply prefer that help be offered voluntarily by individuals, churches, etc.

For another example, i had Opera (stupid Opera, stupid day time TV) on while i was on the computer yesterday and they were talking about saving for your retirement and how you need to put money away for super even if your company doesn't do this automatically. In Australia we have MANDITORY super paid by companies above and beyond what your wages are (i think its 7% of whatever your yearly salary is). Now as well as making sure people have money in retirement this has had the added benefit of injecting a HUGE amount of money into the stock market (think how much money that is when you take 7% of the before tax salary of all the workers in the country and dump a good % of that into the stock market).

George W Bush tried to impliment just this sort of reform to our bankrupt social security system. The Democrats used a campaign of demagoguery and fear to kill it.

 

[Asguard]

Im actually shocked to say the least. There is something i actually agree with Bush on, i have to say that is very rare (i wonder which Bush it was).

We dont see it as paternalistic for the goverment to provide services, actually the only time i have ever even SEEN that enter a policy debate was in the Aborigional Intervention of the previous goverment because they were forcing things like compulery regulation of wealfare on them without consolting the Aborigional comunities.

Its only paternalistic to FORCE services on people. If the counciles pay for a sports field thats not paternalistic. If the states put money into a local football club so that they dont have to relie on pokie revinue thats not paternalistic. Its about providing health and WELBEING

For instance in the SA's Health Review it recomended a whole of goverment aproch to health. It found that things like social housing, sports, social interaction and forfilment were relivent to health especially MENTAL health.

The goverment also pays for the ABC where TV shows and Sports ect which wouldnt have a commertial following are able to be shown. The ABC's motto is from "birth to death" providing shows that might interest a small segment of the community like the ballet.

As for Universities, it is important for them to be able to educate based on tallent your right. For instance should a brillant kid from a remote comunity or a semileterate kid from a ritch family have a spot in a medical degree? We belive that the inteligent kid from the bush should have the spot. So what are the impediments to him taking that place, well maybe he wasnt able to get to school so he might not have as high a basic marks, well that can be delt with either through ajusting the marks for things that arnt essential for the course or by alowing him to take a bridging course to pick up what he missed. Money, well the HECS system pays for all his fees untill he starts earning more than a set wage and then he will just pay a slightly higher tax rate to pay his portion of the education costs back. Location well we can fix that by providing him with housing at university. This is the job of a social justice expert. To find, impediments to engagement and to reducing those blocks

This is everywhere from workplaces to schools to social activities. If you have the ability you should be able to do ANYTHING without regard for disabilies or impediments. This sort of atitude makes a sociaty closer together and more willing to help one another. For instance i cant IMAGIN anything like Katrina happerning here, especially when you compare the result of Katrina to the Cyclone that hit Queensland. We are such a large sparsly populated country that most people couldnt surive without some of these service. For instance the RFDS, this is a medical service that flys out to remote comunities to provide anything from GP services to Emergency. This saves 100's to 1000's of lives every year but couldnt run without goverment money. Flood relife couldnt be surplied without the use of the army to the exstent that it is.

Most of our elections are fought of social issues like health, education, the enviroment, water, ect

It is easier and cheeper for the goverment to provide these services than private industry or comunitie groups. which means there is an economic benifit to this as well. Basically its better to prevent someone from sinking into depression by helping them early and engaging them in social groups than to treat them after a suicide atempt.

 

[madanthonywayne]

Most of our elections are fought of social issues like health, education, the enviroment, water, ect

It is easier and cheeper for the goverment to provide these services than private industry or comunitie groups. which means there is an economic benifit to this as well.

Not true in the US. For instance, my neighborhood was recently "annexed" into a large town. Prior to being part of the town, our neighborhood association contracted with various private companies for everything from plowing snow to garbage pickup.

Now that we're part of a town and paying more than double the taxes we were before, you'd think our garbage pickup, at least, would be free. Nope. Not only is it not free, we now have to pay a fee to the town for our garbage pickup that's more than double what we paid before! And the city uses the same company we used before for the garbage pickup!

Not only that, our streets are no longer getting plowed. Our neighborhood association has had to go back to paying a private company on our own because the city service is so poor.

In short, government sucks. You can't count on it to do anything but take your money.

 

[Gustav]

ahh
pardon
is this where the retards congregate?
or did i make a wrong turn?

 

[Asguard]

then it sounds like what you need is less beocrasy and more services, not less services. See for example there was a libaterian party running at the last election. They didnt even come CLOSE to winning a seat. No matter WHICH side of politics your on in Australia if you dont provide services you wont WIN. You just need to hold the politisons to account. You have WAY to many elected officals for my view and not enough academics in high offices. Apart from the state and federal parliments and the local councils (oh and garbage is collected by the councils BTW, thats what our rates fund, and local roads) there arnt any elected officals. All our judges are apointed by parliment, the procicuters and the DPP are hired and fired internally and by the justice department although he has a great deal of seperation from the goverment. The best way i can describe police promotion is like the US millarty, the commisioner has worked his way up the ranks ect. About the only thing that came from the US when they were designing our country was the Senate (we dont have lords here so our senate is based on yours). Apart from that we have MUCH more in common than with England than the US. As long as the US citizans dont WANT there goverment to provide services they wont, BUT if you FORCE that on them they will start to do it. Trust me its better to live in a country where i can drive to the nearest hospital and asked for my medicare card rather than "do i have insurance" same when i go to a specialist, or a GP or an optomitrist. I invite you to come and live here for a year and see the difference, you might like it