Authored by Norman Kurland and the Center for Economic and Social Justice (www.cesj.org):On the “system feedback” or third principle in the Louis Kelso-Mortier Adler concept of “Economic Justice” we now call “social justice”, we felt that since economic justice is the economic component of social justice and social justice imposes a responsibility on each of us to work together to promote justice in all our social institutions and laws, it was useful to go beyond what Kelso and Adler called the principle of “limitation.” It’s not enough to be against greed and monopolies. We need to offer specific “solutions” (i.e., system reforms) to make our laws and economic institutions reflect both “participative justice” and “distributive justice” to end up with a system that provides “economic justice” for every person.Here’s our latest refinements in our definition of “Economic Justice”:Participative Justice
“Participative Justice” describes how one makes “input” to the economic process in order to make a living. It requires equal opportunity in gaining access to private property in productive assets as well as equality of opportunity to engage in productive work. The principle of participation does not guarantee equal results, but requires that every person be guaranteed by society’s institutions the equal human right to make a productive contribution to the economy, both through one’s labor (as a worker) and through one’s productive capital (as an owner). Thus, this principle rejects monopolies, special privileges, and other exclusionary social barriers to economic self-reliance.
Distributive Justice
“Distributive Justice” defines the “output” or “out-take” rights of an economic system matched to each person’s labor and capital inputs. Through the distributional features of private property within a free and open marketplace, distributive justice becomes automatically linked to participative justice, and incomes become linked to productive contributions. The principle of distributive justice involves the sanctity of property and contracts. It turns to the free and open marketplace, not government, as the most objective and democratic means for determining the just price, the just wage, and the just profit.
Many confuse the distributive principles of justice with those of charity. Charity involves the concept “to each according to his needs,” whereas “distributive justice” is based on the idea “to each according to his contribution.” Confusing these principles leads to endless conflict and scarcity, forcing government to intervene excessively to maintain social order.
Distributive justice follows participative justice and breaks down when all persons are not given equal opportunity to acquire and enjoy the fruits of income-producing property.
Social Justice
“Social Justice” is the “feedback” principle that detects distortions of either the input or out-take principles and to make whatever corrections are needed to restore a just and balanced economic order for all. This principle is violated by unjust barriers to participation, by monopolies or by some using their property to harm or exploit others.
Economic harmony exists when Participative and Distributive Justice are operating fully for every person with a system or institution. “Economic harmonies” is defined in The Oxford English Dictionary as “Laws of social adjustment under which the self-interest of one man or group of men, if given free play, will produce results offering the maximum advantage to other men and the community as a whole.” Social Justice offers guidelines for controlling monopolies, building checks-and-balances within social institutions, and re-synchronizing distribution (outtake) with participation (input). The first two principles of economic justice flow from the eternal human search for justice in general, which automatically requires a balance between input and outtake, i.e., “to each according to what he is due.” Social Justice, on the other hand, reflects the human quest for other absolute values, including Truth, Love and Beauty, and compels people to continually repair and improve their systems for the good of every person.
It should be noted that Kelso and Adler referred to the third principle as “the principle of limitation” as a restraint on human tendencies toward greed and monopoly that lead to exclusion and exploitation of others. Given the potential synergies inherent in economic justice in today’s high technology world, CESJ feels that the concept of “social justice” is more appropriate and more-encompassing than the term “limitation” in describing the third component of economic justice. Furthermore, the harmony that results from the operation of social justice is more consistent with the truism that a society that seeks peace must first work for justice.
(For more discussion on these terms, see Chapter 5 of The Capitalist Manifesto, by Louis O. Kelso and Mortimer J. Adler (Random House, 1958) and Chapters 3 and 4 of Curing World Poverty: The New Role of Property, John H. Miller, ed., Social Justice Review.)
