John Ragan
The Declaration of Independence, in its first paragraph, boldly asserts that America should be a separate nation based upon “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” In the very next paragraph, the text posits, as a self-evident truth, that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,” including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
No place in our nation’s founding documents is the phrase “social justice” to be found. Nowhere is it cited as a divinely endowed right.
In fact, the idea of social justice is an anathema to the concept of unalienable, individual liberty as derived from “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.”
The reason is simple: “social justice” is a concept based on economic egalitarianism through progressive taxation, income redistribution, or even property redistribution. By its very definition, social justice is government-enforced equality of outcome, not equality of opportunity. Philosophically, such a concept is usually predicated on group identity and group wealth or status versus that of another group.
Equality of opportunity is not measured by membership in a particular group, delineated by wealth, or any other factor. Rather, equality of opportunity under law is the lack of government interference with an individual citizen’s liberty to legally pursue his or her own concept of happiness as far as that person’s abilities, desires, and work ethic will propel him or her.
Our founders understood, as does anyone with common sense, that the right to equality of opportunity is, inherently, as much the right to failure as it is the right to success. In other words, the right to liberty is not the freedom from the consequences of choices made when that liberty is exercised.
Adults may choose to drop out of school and join gangs. Likewise, one can choose to engage in unprotected sexual activity without marriage. The liberty to pursue happiness with these activities does not mean that such will achieve happiness. On the contrary, statistically, such choices are far more likely to achieve poverty, disease and misery.
Nonetheless, social justice advocates would oblige the government to attempt to rectify poverty, disease, and misery that result from freely made but unwise choices. To finance this mandate, these advocates demand the coercive surrender of wealth through taxation from citizens who used their liberty to make better choices. Government transferring the wealth of “ants” to benefit “grasshoppers,” or, perhaps, robbing “Peter” to pay “Paul?”
It has oft been quipped that governments which “rob Peter to pay Paul will always have Paul’s support.” However, while a humorous observation, enduring and serious questions underlie it.
First, did “Peter” truly consent to having the government rob him? Second, how much of his God-given pursuit of happiness was Peter forced to forego because the government robbed him? Third, is this justice for Peter—social or otherwise?
“We, the People,” created constitutionally limited government to establish justice for the individual citizen, not social justice for groups. Furthermore, the intent of that Constitution was, and remains, to “secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity,” not redistribute wealth.
Thomas Jefferson’s writings noted the sum of good and just government lies in very few principles: First, government should be frugal with those monies it collects from its citizens. Second, government “must restrain its citizens from injuring one another, but, otherwise, leave them free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement.” Finally, he observed that good government does not “take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.”
Anyone see “social justice” among Jefferson’s principles of good government?
Rep. John Ragan, an Oak Ridge Republican, represents the 33rd District, which includes most of Anderson County, in the Tennessee House of Representatives.
T J says
Perfect Libertarian principles–
Rodger says
“…with liberty and justice for all.” The two things go hand-in-hand.
Peter Scheffler says
Does Mr. Ragan recognize the following quote? “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
MW224 says
What is your point? Promoting general welfare involves leadership and encouraging the masses to pick themselves up and contribute positively to our nations prosperity. It does not involve socialistic taxation and redistribution to those who do not put forth effort to make a positive impact on the overall union itself.
Anne says
well said.
CN says
Alexander Hamilton argued the point that promoting the general welfare in a broad sense was part of the purpose of Congress and its taxing powers. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison argued that the general welfare only applied in the context of protecting the country in a military sense (See for example Federalist Paper 41).
However, Hamilton’s view carried the day. Madison actually conceded the point privately (look up the Madisonian contradiction) and Thomas Jefferson certainly acted on the broader interpretation during his administration.
Pretending that the general welfare does not include ideas like social justice, civil rights, clean air, etc, etc, etc… is not historically supported.
57 states says
So which one supported social equality in today’s context and clean air in the global warming context?
CN says
Alexander Hamilton argued the point that promoting the general welfare in a broad sense was part of the purpose of Congress and its taxing powers.
Madison took the narrower view publicly but conceded that a broader interpretation was the intent, privately. Jefferson argued for the narrow view, but by the time of his presidency, he was acting on the broader view:
For example:
Louisiana Purchase (1803)
Lewis and Clark Expedition (1804-1806)
Abolition of Slave Trade (1807)
The Supreme Court has also followed the broader view of what the general welfare includes.
Mike M says
Haven’t got to respond to you in awhile in a forum. Actually Hamilton was killed by Burr as a result of their disagreements (this one included). No doubt Hamilton was a strong support of a strong central government (not necessarily the same as today’s definition) but still lobbied in the Federalist papers for such. John Adams was of similar thoughts. Jefferson and Madison took the views of stronger states. None of the original founders, including Hamilton, lobbied for a general welfare clause interpretation to provide level of health and welfare to individual citizens though yes he did believe in strong taxing powers (which some say was a reason for the duel with Burr, but I say no). Hamilton argued for a broad interpretation of all clauses related to taxation such that he wanted a large powers to be implied by general clauses, and one of these authorized Congress to “make all laws which shall be necessary and proper” for carrying out other powers specifically granted. Hamilton/Federalists prevailed in the establishment of a national banking system but many things remained with the states for 2 centuries. To say that idea implied that Hamilton wanted the general welfare to include things like medical care for all (not an idea at the time) is a big, big stretch.
CN says
Not a big stretch when you realize that medical care for all by today’s standard only means everyone is responsible for their own medical insurance.
Besides a broad interpretation of the general welfare clause means that stuff you didn’t think of yesterday may be important tomorrow. And vice versa, BTW.
amberg says
Does this mean that John believes in only survival of the fittest? If so, what happens to those poor, unfortunate souls who aren’t quite as “perfect” as him? Heck, even a pack of wolves work together to keep the entire pack alive and well.
Activator says
John Reagan’s comments sound like those of a statesman deserving of reelection. He understands the consequences of liberal fiscal policies.
Peggy Tiner says
Promoting the general welfare is a good concept. That is already being done in this country by providing services that people don’t think of as “services” because they have always had them. I don’t think the general welfare was intended to take money from rich people and give it to poor people. The idea was to spend tax money on things that enable people to earn a living and take care of themselves. I don’t think the people of the United Stated were ever promised a rose garden, although many seem to think so.
57 states says
Thank you Peggy.
The general welfare includes roads so that you and I may get to work and producers can bring their goods to market so that we may sustain ourselves.
No one would argue that the general welfare would also include providing safe drinking water or common sewage disposal so that we don’t succumb to cholera, dysentary, or any other disease brought about by unsanitary conditions.
The general welfare includes a level playing ground that affords one the opportunity to provide for one’s needs rather than an opportunity to level the playing ground to take from someone else that which you should provide for yourself.
To these things I think all would agree; that I am willing to contribute the fruits of my labors so that we all may benefit – whether it be in common health or a common ease in productivity.
Just World Fallacy says
The logical foundation for Representative Ragan’s argument against government-enforced social justice policies appears to hinge on one underlying assumption: Bad things only happen to bad people and — vis-Ã -vis — good things only happen to good people. By holding this belief to be true, Rep. Ragan can comfortably say that we should not “oblige the government to attempt to rectify poverty, disease, and misery that result from freely made but unwise choices.” The implication is that little to no “poverty, disease, and misery” ever occurs from wise choices, or in spite of any choice, for that matter. Although this belief in a just world allows Rep. Ragan to form his argument, the reality is that it’s a mistaken belief. We are confronted daily with evidence that the world is not just: people suffer without apparent cause. Belief in a just world is appealing because it’s empowering, but it fails to account for factors that hinder both our opportunities and free will. It also tends to encourage current injustices by portraying them as simply the natural order of things.
The concept of social justice accepts the reality of injustice and tries to mitigate it or provide restitution. Social justice acknowledges both the power and limitations of individual choices. Regarding our Constitution, the excerpt from the first sentence, “promote the general Welfare,” is the “social justice” that Rep. Ragan can’t seem to find. Just as the government under The Constitution promotes the “general Welfare,” social justice promotes the health, happiness, and fortunes of a group. Social justice is, in fact, among the nation’s founding principles.
Mike M says
Absolutely not!
Mike M says
In 1786, a 26-year old had likely fought in war of independence, started a business or farm and had 2 or more children to gens for. The concept of social justice was as foreign in our founding years as French fries.
Mike M says
Wait! How could I have made such a mistake? The 26-year old didn’t build his business. Government did it. Shame on me for not thinking.
Sarah Johnson says
Oh Lord, help us!
Rodger says
As a white man who grew up in Chicago’s North Shore, I could easily ride through life without examining the privileges that are afforded to me for having won the “genetic lottery.” Mr. Ragan would benefit by exploring his own privilege and how we perpetuate racism by ignoring these privileges. Let’s keep in mind the Declaration of Independence was signed by a bunch of rich white men who would not have considered people with brown skin to be actual people. Let’s not pretend like the legacy of Jim Crow and slavery does not still permeate society in insidious ways.
On another note, Mr. Ragan critiques social justice based on a definition of “social justice” that suits his argument but is certainly far from an agreed upon definition even within social justice circles in academia, government and advocacy. Equality of opportunity is certainly a tenant of social justice. His contention that it is about ‘equality of outcome’ is a straw man.
Rodger says
OF COURSE THE SIGNERS DIDN’T CONSIDER SOCIAL JUSTICE — BECAUSE THEY WERE SLAVEOWNERS! WHY WOULD THEY WANT TO GIVE UP THEIR RIGHT TO OWN OTHER HUMAN BEINGS.
Mike M says
First, I have neithe white privilege or white guilt. I grew up in a poor family with both parents working multiple jobs. We had neither a car or TV until I was about 7. Yes tImes were hard but they did not expect the gov to take care of us. I am glad my parents and my public school teachers put a work ethic in my bones.
Now, should we help those in need. Absolutely. Do we do so that people become totally dependent in others. I say no, not for those who can help themselves.
I was talking with a black friend last week and lamenting how a poor child born in Chicago slums has it very hard. I’m not sure what should really be done. Progressives since the late 1800s, through possibly good intentions, have kept minorities segregated to a large extent (even now). 50+ years of the great society have failed to delIver. Am I for affirmative action. Possibly. I wish I had the answers to economic empowerment but I’m not that smart. I think to some extent getting people out of economic bonds could be considered under general welfare (if such action actually works). I also have no doubt Hamilton would advocate such, right or wrong. Is national health care covered under that clause? I don’t think so but moot for now. Does my response say poor people do not need health care. No. Another discussion, not going there today.
Peggy Tiner says
I agree with you. Unfortunately, no one has the answers to these questions. I think it would help if schools were required to teach some classes which pertain directly to the world in which the students will be living. Even, or especially, students who are going on to college need to understand how to budget, what happens if you charge more than you can pay at the end of the month, and lots of things that many adults seem never to have heard about. People who lost houses when interest rates increased should have known better, but apparently they didn’t have a clue.
Mare Martell says
I wonder how his pursuit of happiness would feel if he walked in our shoes for a while. Come down off the Golden Mountain and live like the rest of us. You wouldn’t be so quick to twist words and blame, AGAIN, the people who voted your sorry butt into office. Unbelievable. Simply unbelievable.
Tj says
Mare, what are you saying? John worked very hard, and risked his life many, many times over Vietnam to get where he is now. What golden mtn?
G Grubb says
I don’t know John Ragan, but I assume he is a priviledged white male who has never experienced the heartbreak and frustration of discrimination. He obviously has no idea what “social justice” is really about. I believe it’s time we educate him or remove him from office.
Mike M says
That’s a racist comment if there ever was one.
Rodger says
Amen G Grubb!
Mike M says
General welfare has almost nothing to do with helping individual people, or providing welfare, but the protection of the population from things such as contagions. Regarding CN’s post above, the Jefferson view would not have a CDC while the Hamilton view would have. I believe we have reached a good compromise on the general welfare, again which at least the original intent had nothing to do with “welfare.”
CN says
But in times like during the depression, when too many were out of work and could not feed their families, welfare became important to the general welfare. Important safeguards were created and overtime the bulk of those welfare programs retreated to reflect more prosperous times. The system is very adaptable when it needs to be.
57 states says
Baloney. The depression was instigated by a mining engineer who thought he could apply his famously successful QA/QC practices that he developed in the mining industry to economics. In his attempt to institute price controls and standardize the market system, he disrupted the very market system he thought he could stabilize. FDR then caused the “depression” by taking the opportunity to institute socialism into the economic system which prolonged what began as nothing more than a market correction – much as we see today.
The greatest asset in a free market system is the freedom to fail. Bad ideas get run over like so much road kill; but good ideas will flourish and prosper.
When good ideas are demonized out of envy (that is, the idea that someone else should not prosper from their own industry, much as we see our president doing today) then the whole system begins to collapse in the name of social justice. Equality of opportunity allows everyone the same chance to succeed and prosper; equality of outcome means that we will all be rationed the same no matter our own input. And this latter is what is called social justice.
Mike M says
The depression was a different time. My dad grew up in it and told me horror stories but we made it. Some say the depression was made worse by FDR policies. I’ll stop short of passing judgement not having been alive. But I’m certain the economy was improved by WW2. The great depression has no bearing in today. We cannot spend our way to prosperity.
As far as Mr. Ragan, he worked hard. Privilege is very over rated unless one is born a Kennedy, Bush or similar.
Just World Fallacy says
Since Mike made no reference to any statements of fact that I made, I must conclude that he found no errors of fact. Rather, his statement of “Absolutely not!” provides a claim, but offers no proof. Admittedly, Mike’s example involving a hypothetical 26-year-old Revolutionary War soldier may be his intended counterpoint. For the record, let’s consider briefly Mike’s responses.
Mike’s proposition seems qute simple: terms that were not around at the time of The Constitution’s signing (e.g. french-fries) and/or not included in The Constitution have no place or relevance in modern government. If this were the case, every word, concept or technology invented after the signing of The Constitution would be outside the scope of government. Essentially, one could say, “If it’s not in The Constitution, government shouldn’t do it.” This principle is not practiced, and for good reason: The Constitution provides a mixture of both specific and general legal guidelines. The Constitution’s timelessness is attributable to its ability to relate to things and issues not present or fully realized at its signing. For good or ill, as words, ideas and technology change, so too does the scope and breadth of The Constitution.
As my first post states, the concept of social justice, “promotes the health, happiness, and fortunes of a group.” The definition of welfare is “the health, happiness, and fortunes of a person or group.” Irregardless of the exact date of the formation of the term, “social justice,” the phrase “general Welfare,” in The Constitution already encompassed this policy. Consequently, while “social justice” may have been an unknown term in 1786, it’s synonymous term, “general Welfare,” was both known and incorporated into The Constitution as one of the nation’s founding principles.
Mike M says
The term “social justice” was as foreign to the founding principles and specifically “general welfare” then as it is now.
Just World Fallacy says
The principles of social justice include solidarity, acknowledging and valuing human rights, and recognizing the dignity of every human being. The Constitution makes a point of emphasizing each of these principles, as seen with the preamble of “We the People,” and the later ratification of the Bill of Rights. Once again, while “social justice†may have been an unknown term in 1786, the writings incorporated into The Constitution nevertheless advocate its principles.
Mike M says
Right, right, that’s why the country had slaves for another 80 years and why we segregated Indians on reservations. Yes that social justice concept was alive and well.
Just World Fallacy says
Two different arguments seem to be posisted in Mike’s response. The first is that the failure of The Constitution (or at the very least, The Bill of Rights) to have originally included the 13th Amendment indicates that the concept of social justice was entirely absent from The Constitution. The second argument carries off this point by noting that the atrocities and injustices committed by the US government following its establishment also counter any pretext of social justice in the Founding Documents.
While it’s reassuring to know that Mike appears to take issue with human injustices, both arguments are based on the logical fallacy of cherry-picking, as they point to individual cases that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases that contradict that position. Those other related cases I am referring to can be found in The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, and its Amendments. These sources make continual appeals to the ideas of social justice. The Declaration of Independence, as Rep. Ragan points out, says that “all men are created equal;” a view at the heart of social justice. The Constitution asserts government’s responsibility to promoting the “general Welfare;” a term whose definition is incorporated into the mission of social justice. Notable Amendments like the 1st, 4th, 5th, 8th, 13th, and 19th all reaffirm the principles of social justice. Admittedly, each amendment is notable in its own regard; the point here is that the nation’s Founding Documents are saturated with the principles of social justice, namely solidarity, acknowledging and valuing human rights, and recognizing the dignity of every human being.
The flaw in Mike’s first argument is that the very injustice he points to (i.e. slavery) is one we all know was abolished via an amendment to The Constituition. Mike’s point, however, is that universal human rights (i.e. both for citizens and non-citizens, alike) were not a “founding principle.” The issue with that argument is this: by that same logic none of the amendments to The Constitution (including The Bill of Rights) should be acknowledged, as they came “after” the ratification of The Constitution. The reason why such an argument does not prevail is because The Constitution allows for amendments to reshape its scope and reaffirm its principles. Therefore, the addition of amendments like the 13th and 19th act as reaffirmations of The Constitution’s principles of social justice. The failing of the US Government to live up to the principles of social justice found in The Constitution is a failure of the US Government, not The Constitution. In this regard, Mike’s second argument can also be refuted. While applying an anachronistic view of our past government’s moral failures blights its following of social justice, doing so fails to acknowledge The Constitution’s deep-seated promotions for social justice.
Peggy Tiner says
Have you two ever heard people arguing about religion? Arguing about politics is the same. Everyone has their own idea of what the documents really mean and are not willing to change their mind on the subject. “The general welfare” can include a lot of things, we must decide which affordable options will be the most helpful. Obviously, we cannot manage to give everyone everything they would like to have, but it would be nice if we could manage to help everyone get basic necessities. Why not focus on that.
Mike M says
Our republic was founded on self reliance and individual responsibility. Citizens came together even needed to help each other, though usually not via government. Everyone was expected to do something to help.
I’m all in favor of helping those that cannot help themselves with basic necessities. It can be done best through churchs and charities for most of those.
Would you agree that people that buy cigarettes and/or beer, cell phones and/or flat-screen TVs with cable, lottery tickets and/or tattoos do not need our help with basic necessities?
Tj says
Great discourse guys. Good points. Educational to read.
One Libertarian slogan is: we want a government small enough to live within the Constitution.