Against Liberty: The Quest for Cosmic Justice

johnfkerkhoff@gmail.com


Among the chief concerns of the American people is justice. Virtually everyone proclaims his allegiance to that noble cause. Unfortunately - as Thomas Sowell documents in his book, "The Quest for Cosmic Justice" - the term justice has come to connote several different ideas - thus leading to a confusion as to what is meant by justice.

Sowell begins by explaining the type of justice he endorses - traditional justice. This brand of justice adheres to the principle of equality under the law. That is, everyone must follow the same rules, without any particular people or groups receiving unfair or arbitrary benefits; everyone is treated equally.

Such an idea is simple enough. But, as Sowell points out, traditional justice is not acceptable to visionaries who reject the "equality of opportunity" argument. For supporters of social or "cosmic" justice, only equality of results will suffice. Public Policy should aim to achieve equality in income, education levels, employment numbers, etc. for everyone, regardless of external factors, such as work ethic, cultural history, demographics and experience. Advocates of social justice argue that any indication of one group's performing better than another group can be attributed to "society as a whole" or the "discriminatory system" in which we live.

It is true, Sowell argues, that discrimination exists and that it is an abhorrent practice. We would be remiss, however, to attribute such discrepancies of results to something as complex and untestable as "institutional racism." How, Sowell asks, can the anointed know that racism or sexism caused such unequal results? With what instrument, formula, algorithm or empirical evidence can we attribute unequal results to social injustice? Surely, it is an untestable theory.


An additional problem with social justice lies in the consequences of the policies it promotes. Economic trade offs should always be considered when making policy decisions. The trouble, Sowell says, is that politicians generally consider only the political consequences of particular policies. It is not politically advantageous for a senator to say that welfare hurts the poor, regardless of how true that is economically. Having politicians make decisions aimed at enhancing their political capital as opposed to economic realities is not only inefficient, but detrimental to society as a whole.

For example, price controls are a staple among the social justice crowd. There is little doubt that those who advocate price controls want to ameliorate the situation of the poor. However, in reality, price controls lead only to a less supply, higher transaction costs, black markets and a worse situation for everyone. With price controls, fewer goods are available for people to consume. Those with the least amount of money tend to be those who are the last to receive a good when supply is so strictly limited. Therefore, the ostensible beneficiaries of such policies are among those who are hurt the most.

Additionally, Sowell says that it is epistemologically impossible for politicians to know how much a certain good should cost. There is no mechanism through which one can make a determination as to what a "fair" price is. However, it must be true that free exchange between Jones and Smith yields a "fair" price. If one did not consider the price fair, he would not have made the purchase at all.

Beyond the utilitarian implications of social justice is a more important (at least, in my view) issue. Nearly every policy pushed by cosmic justice results in a loss of freedom for everyone. Sowell uses an example surrounding 19th century housing to illustrate his point. Immigrants lived in homes that Sowell grants had horrid conditions. They were often overcrowded, unsanitary and unsafe. In calls for cosmic justice, policy makers sought to require landlords to provide better housing. More sanitary, safer, roomier - and more expensive. Sure, politicians had good intentions in mind, but that point is irrelevant. What is more pertinent is the fact that many of the tenants could have already afforded to move to better housing. That is, those who lived in such horrendous conditions chose to live there, for numerous reasons. Many wished to save money so they could pay for family members to come to America. Others wanted to use extra cash to save for an even better home than the one given to them by the government. Regardless, they no longer had a choice. Laws were passed requiring certain building standards where people lived. These new buildings were more expensive, thus leaving residents with less additional income. In short, tenants no longer had the freedom to live in a poorly maintained home in order to save extra cash. As a consolation, at least the cosmic justice crowd felt good about advancing its agenda.


The negative consequences of social justice are not restricted to economics and liberty. Sowell argues that the pervasive belief in equality of results has penetrated the judiciary. In an attempt to right social wrongs, activist judges not only unfairly and arbitrarily enforce law, but destroy the rule of law itself. As opposed to the traditional idea that judges simply interpret law fairly and equally to everyone, the judiciary now acts with such caprice that one cannot foresee the implications of his actions. The very essence of the rule of law (as opposed to government edicts), Sowell says, is the citizen's ability to foresee judicial decisions. By this, Sowell means that Americans should be able to anticipate, based on past patterns, how a rule is interpreted and act accordingly. Judicial activists acting in the name of cosmic justice, however, make this nearly impossible. Anti-trust laws - which certainly aim at equality of results in business - are not objectively clear. That is, the owner of business A cannot know whether he is acting in accordance with anti-trust laws until a judge has decided. Such a policy is antithetical to the rule of law. There is no way to foresee what an activist judge will declare as "monopolization"; the decision is purely subjective.

There is little doubt that social justice advocates have good intentions. There is less doubt, however, that the very policies they support cause more harm than good, diminish liberty and destroy the rule of law. Until we realize that social justice is a mirage, and more freedom is always better, we will continue down a path paved with good intentions. Unfortunately, good intentions tend to never end where one intended.