The Quest for Cosmic Justice (1996) Thomas Sowell

"The vision of morally anointed visionaries ministers to the egos of the anointed, rather than the well-being of the ostensible beneficiaries of their efforts"

Cosmic justice, or the aim of righting all wrongs in the universe, is incompatible with traditional justice and the rule of law; where should righting all the wrongs of the cosmos end?  Argues that while inequalities, discrimination, and prejudice exist, that the road to righting the wrongs of prejudice is never-ending, and furthermore, that it is impossible to define what wrongs exist due to discrimination vs. Other extenuating circumstances – how much of what someone gets is due to their own effort, vs other factors.  Thus, asks the questions, what is “justice,” and what is “equality?”  Argues that justice should be justice under a set of pre-determined rules – that is, the law – and that equality should be similarly defined – as “blind,” not in terms of measuring outcomes for one particular group vs. Another – “traditional justice is about impartial processes rather than either results or prospects.”  Defining equality is conceptual not a science.  Says that people adopt their morally self-anointed visions, which are attractive in theory, to the end of self-exaltation of their guilt in the status quo, without regard for the actual consequences of the vision, or how they actually play out if implemented – what are the expenses to the other groups whom the cosmic justice servers are disregarding.  The liberal elite do not have to pay the price that falls on the neck of the working classes of America (i.e. disappeared coal jobs). “…one of the first things an ideologue will do after achieving absolute power is kill” (see: Stalin, Communist Manifesto, etc.). No honest disagreement is possible, and the morally superior are the saviors of the World – it is their quest which anoints their morality, irrespective if they are effective at reducing war (or inequality, or whatever it is).  Thinking that it could be possible to achieve those things in other ways, I.e. pacifism vs. Nuclear deterrence, is not even open to conversation. Says in our current theory of meritocracy, we might argue against paying politicians or teachers more, if current results are mediocre – which would attract a higher caliber of talent.  Says “justice at all costs” is not justice, because an injustice in and of itself is the arbitrary imposition of some cost on some person who is innocent, thus, this creates a circle if we must impose another arbitrary cost on another innocent to correct it (who “has,” who “has not”).  “…’justice at all costs’ is not justice. What, after all, is an injustice but the arbitrary imposition of a cost.”  Visions of being a victim and that the deck is stacked are self-defeating if you think you can’t get anywhere with learning or trying to be productive in society; if you fear being envied by neighbors or relatives, you will not strive to perform or innovate.  "Why study and discipline yourself in preparation for the adult world if the deck is completely stacked against you anyway? At least you can show that you are not a sucker who is taken in. What these students are doing is consistent with the vision that is presented to them...”  Envy is a vicious circle, which cannot be redressed by transfers (Helmut Schoeck Envy); the other party is still humiliated, as the transfer is artificial – the only way to get rid of it is to abandon it; the political process of trying to fix envy leads to the promotion of more envy, in fact.  “…envy and fear of envy within these societies inhibit individual striving and innovation.”  “The more one seeks to deprive the envious man of his ostensible reason for envy by giving him presents and doing him good turns, the more one demonstrates one’s superiority and stresses how little the gifts will be missed. Were one to strip oneself of every possession, such a demonstration of goodness would still humiliate him so that his envy would be transferred from one’s possessions to one’s character. And if one were to raise him to one’s own level, this artificially established equality would not make him in the least happy. He would again envy, firstly the benefactor’s character, and secondly the recollection retained by the benefactor during this period of his erstwhile material superiority.”  Sowell has a somewhat sober vision of our mutual humanity, “The only way to have ‘equal respect’ is to have respect divorced from behavior and performance—which is to say, to have the word “respect” lose its meaning.”  Nonetheless, for many people, human respect and behavior/performance are linked.  Points out rightly that an employer can chose to locate somewhere without racial differences and thus avoid the legal risk of discrimination claims.  “The abstract desirability of equality, like the abstract desirability of immortality, is beside the point when choosing what practical course of action to follow.” -- and says that equality is a mirage, and the never-ending dangers we may undertake to try to achieve it.  “…as if equality were so natural and inevitable that its absence could only be explained by pervasive and sinister efforts against it.”  Only 3% of the poor and rich stay in those income quintiles as long as 8 years, and that mobility is not dead.  Points out the unequal nature of geography, cultures, and the learned response of those cultures to said geographies, further confounding the possibility for “equality” -- Eskimos are not very good at growing pineapples; “Geography is brutally oblivious to human desires for equality”.  “Cultures have consequences” whether you choose to adopt those things that have produced wealth in some societies, or cling to cultures that have produced poverty.  “Efforts to help the less fortunate to acquire the behavioral prerequisites of productivity are often condemned as cultural imperialism.”  Progress of humanity has been based on competition.  Points to our righteous/symbolistic criticism of estate taxes, which are a very small proportion of total tax revenues and cost a lot to administer, as more a political crusade against wealth than anything (“dog in the manger”).  Points to authority as something useful in a social hierarchy that serves social purposes, I.e. a parent which must protect a child demands that they listen to the parent.  Likewise, we presume scientists to have more authority than laypeople on matters of science.  “Leaving out all questions of ability, we still cannot be equal performers if we are not equally interested in the same kinds of performances” (people’s values).  Expecting equal outcomes says we expect all people should have the same values.  Inequality is not only explained by efforts against it; it can be a natural effect.  The will of a people can be different than the will of a tyrant (I.e. Mussolini or Hitler), as it pertains to war.  Sowell argues for arms races as a deterrent and not wasteful, arising the question, where does one stop (maybe never, he thinks)?  “If military deterrence permits that to be done without bloodshed, it is not a “waste” because the arms are never used, but instead is a bargain because they were formidable enough that they did not have to be used, nor lives sacrificed in the carnage of war.”  Hitler and Mussolini viewed the West as weak, which lead to their campaigns for war (and almost led to the West’s defeat).  Argues that not all war is futile (Civil War), but that it can be (Vietnam), “The ‘futility of war’ is an exhilarating set of sounds rather than a serious statement to be tested seriously against facts. Some wars are indeed futile. Some are not.”  Points to quests such as minimum living standards as increasing housing costs for slum dwellers – thus, were they really doing what was in the best interest of the poor?  “Since better housing mandated by law cost more money, immigrant slum-dwellers now had to devote a higher percentage of their incomes toward purchasing more expensive housing.”  Attacking “third world exploitation” does not consider what happens to those people if the “exploitation” leaves – their material subsistence level declines.  “Nothing will hurt those Third World people more surely than losing one of their few meager opportunities to earn incomes by producing at lower costs than more fortunate people in more industrialized nation.”  The power of a vision can be shown by its exemption from need for evidence or logic (and good propaganda can use numbers and statistics without actually needing to be sound logic).  Our “prevailing visions” are our default settings – and most people do not have the time or inclination to dig intoand question them.  “The vision of morally anointed visionaries ministers to the egos of the anointed, rather than the well-being of the ostensible beneficiaries of their efforts”, in which people have heavy emotional investments.  The founding fathers of America feared monopoly on truth, which is why they established processes for power to be restrained and updated, and to give the common man a voice.  Cosmic justice strivers like to dismiss what has gotten us to here (do you like being alive?).  Today is a great place relative to history, but people focus on the shortcomings of society; “The prerequisites of civilization are not an interesting subject to those who concentrate on its shortcomings—that is, on the extent to which what currently exists as the fruits of centuries of efforts and sacrifices is inferior to what they can produce in their imagination immediately at zero cost, in the comfort and security provided by the society they disdain.”  Aristotle said, “things that are true and things that are better are almost always easier to believe in.” The truth can seem simple compared to elaborate attempts to confound truth.  The point of rights is that people do not have to satisfy others’ conceptions of wisdom or virtue in their exercise, as these mores change from time to time, and are subjective.  Cosmic justice requires constricting someone’s freedom to deliver a better result to societies “losers” -- with things like affirmative action eroding rule of law, instead relying on vague definitions, putting interpretation in the hands of judges.  Performance differences between groups vanish and we look only at “advantages,” which can include those decisions or choices made by certain people.  Furthermore, society can be better off when those with “Advantages” make use of them, I.e. Bill Gates and computers.  The judicial should be about determining what is and is not in violation of law – not what is and is not “just.”  The separation of roles in the creation of law is crucial to its preservation.  The constitution and the 10th amendment says the federal government may only do those things which the constitution says it can – but we have overstepped that, with the Federal Government dispensing funds to states for those things which the states are supposed to be in charge of (I.e. the Dept of Education).