Of all the catchphrases in the leftist arsenal, there are none so powerful as “social justice.” Demands for a vast array of interventionist policies, from minimum wage laws to food stamps to housing subsidies and progressive taxation, are rooted in the idea that society has treated some people unfairly and therefore must be transformed.

Those calls for transformation invariably entail coercive intervention by the state: government must do something. But many of the suggested interventions don’t seem all that just, or they produce unintended consequences and perverse incentives. This book, edited by Robert Whaples, Michael Munger, and Christopher Coyne, takes those problems seriously.

What, precisely, is social justice? Can we achieve it without damaging our social and economic foundations? Those are the big questions addressed in the book, with 19 well-chosen essays. The main takeaway is that looking to government for the realization of social justice is a mistake. If you are genuinely concerned about the lives of the poor, the writers gathered here do their best to persuade you that government intervention is not the answer.

Obsessed with outcomes / All the essays make strong contributions to the debate over social justice. I will comment on several that I found especially compelling.

The overarching theme of the book is that “social justice” is a dangerous idea because it shifts the focus of justice away from the actions of individuals, and to the results of that great abstraction, society. In his opening essay, Whaples explains:

Shifting from the will of individuals in rendering justice to the outcome of the system of rules achieving justice can be a dangerous leap. To some, it suggests that virtually every inequality arises because the rules of the game are unfair and that the state must intervene whenever there are unequal outcomes.

Whaples argues that debates over social justice need to be anchored in principles that preserve individual liberty while at the same time caring for the wellbeing of others.

In his essay “Social Justice versus Western Justice,” Daniel Guerriere argues that the push for social justice undermines the great achievements of Western civilization. It does so by eroding the uniqueness and autonomy of the individual. He states that the equality that matters most, the equality of rights, cannot coexist with a government that’s obsessed with equal outcomes for groups.

Adam Martin writes that the United States has long suffered from “justice creep,” meaning that Americans have been conditioned through schooling and the media to see life’s inevitable inequalities as injustices that call for corrective action by the state. It also stokes resentment among the less fortunate, who hear the social justice rhetoric and conclude that they have been denied their due. Martin observes that “this gets people into the streets and into the voting booth, but it doesn’t equip them to deal with issues constructively.”

Kevin Vallier considers F.A. Hayek and John Rawls in his essay “Hayekian Social Justice.” Rawls’s A Theory of Justice has animated many to believe that society is fundamentally unfair and must be reshaped to place the interests of the poor at center stage. Hayek, on the other hand (writing decades before Rawls), argued that all members of society are best off if certain general rules are adhered to, particularly limited government that protects property rights, the neutral rule of law, and a market-based economic system. Rawlsian social justice advocates speak as if the poor outcomes for some were deliberately ordained. Valliers responds, “If, as Hayek thought, particular outcomes are not deliberately produced by moral agents, but rather by spontaneous order, then particular economic outcomes cannot be evaluated as just or unjust.” Vallier proceeds to argue that a liberal economic system is in fact just and that turning away from it will prove detrimental.

In his essay “Opting Out: A Defense of Social Justice,” James Otteson contends that we should take social justice advocates seriously but focus the debate away from a collectivist analysis. “Sometimes our desire to find someone to blame for what has befallen us or others is so strong that we impute deliberate reasons even when none exists,” he writes. Rather than demanding that government do something, it would be better to harness the incentives that impel humans to cooperate with and serve others. A good program for achieving social justice would be, in Otteson’s view, “first the removal of formal restrictions placed on any individuals or groups that limit their ability to achieve a flourishing life as they themselves understand it. A second step would be endorsement of political and economic policy that rewards people for engaging in cooperative behavior and partnerships that provide benefit and value to others.” In short, a liberal social and economic system is the best we can do.

Christianity / Several of the book’s essays deal with the arguments that Christianity requires governmental redistribution of wealth in the name of social justice. John Moore examines the longstanding debate among Catholic theologians on the role of the state. Should aid to the poor be just a matter of individual conscience, or should government play a (or even the) major role?

Moore juxtaposes the writings of Gustavo Gutierrez and Michael Novak. The former maintained that state action is necessary because charity will not suffice; the latter argued that state action is not necessary and will have harmful unintended consequences. Moore thinks that Novak has the better argument. He points out that individual action creates benefits for both the giver and the receiver:

The very best of what social justice can be involves a dual relationship between individuals who provide justice and those who benefit from it. The closer these activities can entail involvement on a personal level, the greater the “good” that all parties take away. A great number of “microjustice” events, when added together, is the best conduit to achieving substantive “macrojustice” change.

Also on the theme of the religious obligations of Christians, D. Eric Schansberg argues that there is no biblical warrant for coercive redistribution of wealth. What is morally incumbent upon Christians is to aid the needy of their own volition and to help educate people so they can avoid making bad decisions, both on their own and for society.

Consequentialism / Several essays are rooted in consequentialist philosophy. Pascal Salin argues that an individualist approach to social justice is consistent with the equal dignity of each person, whereas coercive social justice measures will be counterproductive. He writes:

The obsession with equality becomes destructive of civilization, and it is not surprising that revolutions on behalf of equality lead to the worst inequalities—those coming from the inequality of power. The enrichment by exploitation of others replaces the enrichment gained by serving others.

Andrew Cohen looks at the social justice controversy from the perspective of a “bleeding heart libertarian.” He writes that “concern for the plight of the less fortunate is central to our project.” For him, the great challenge is not to ensure that everyone is equal, but rather to ensure that everyone has enough. He observes that throughout human history, poverty was the norm for almost everyone; that changed because of the emergence of laissez-faire capitalism. It is only due to the freedom that capitalism gives people to use their minds to produce goods and services for profit that the mass of the population was able to escape poverty. Instead of subverting the system that has done so much to improve the human condition, Cohen points to various governmental interferences with capitalism that, if eliminated, would greatly benefit the poor, such as occupational licensing laws.

Continuing to focus on politics as the cause of social injustice rather than a means of achieving it, Vincent Geloso and Philip Magness point out that democracy is principally a game of interest group power—a game that disfavors the poor. They, too, argue that downsizing the scope of governmental power would advance social justice by enabling the poor to pursue their interests.

Similarly, in his concluding essay, Whaples argues that if you are serious about helping the poor, you need to look at a host of policies that block the poor’s own efforts at improving their lives: agricultural programs that increase the price of food, government policies against efficient energy production that hit hardest on those who can least afford high heating bills, labor laws that protect unionized workers from competition, and many others.

Is Social Justice Just? would be especially welcome on college campuses, where talk about social justice is almost ceaseless. Debates should be arranged with the book as background reading. The book would also fit nicely into senior capstone assignments and graduate school seminars. Professors who want to challenge their students to think outside the box of “progressive” orthodoxy would do well to put this book in front of them.