My friendly debate/discussion with Dr. Steven Horwitz about whether advocates of freedom can or should make common cause with the Social Justice movement. After the introductions by the organizers of the Friedman 8 conference in Australia, my opening remarks run from minute 1 to about minute 22. Then Professor Horwitz gives his initial remarks, at which point we turn to questions and conversational back-and-forth.
This is really great, I appreciate this. Such beautifully well-thought out talks, not like a typical podcast. Thank you for this!
Good discussion. It seems the question of which rights violations as compared to other violations are more serious depends on whose rights are violated. There is not a one-size-fits-all answer to this question. So, I would be wary about trying to direct folks towards focussing on one (or set of) violation(s) more than another. Also, engaging those who care about social justice is a tricky matter, since the concept is not clear, and in some cases has assumptions that need challenging. Obviously, one needs to be part of the current debates, but this requires conceptual dexterity.
It also occurs to me that if one should NOT regard stealing a thousand dollars from a rich person less a rights violation than from a poor person, then considering some rights violations more worthy of our attention than others is not something justified by ethical principles, but by something else. Such a move might be justified as a way to become part of the current discussion, but it could also be a way to avoid being in conflict with folks who our currently garnering the attention and esteem.