Okay, it's not Charades or Twister, but it

好吧 這也許不如比手畫腳或扭扭樂好玩

should generate some interesting conversation, especially if your guests are on the political Left.

但可能會發展成有意思的對話 特別是有左派人士在現場的話

Since everyone on that side of the spectrum talks incessantly about social justice,

既然左派人士總是對社會公平高談闊論

they should be able to provide a good definition, right?

他們理當對此有很好的定義，對吧？

But ask ten liberals to tell you what they mean by social justice and you’ll get ten

但如果是問10位政治傾向自由的人這個問題，你會得到10個

different answers. That’s because Social Justice means anything

不同的答案。因為社會公平就是

its champions want it to mean.

社會上的強者說了算

Almost without exception, labor unions, universities and colleges, private foundations and public charities

除異議份子外 所有的工會、大專院校、私人基金會和社會大眾

claim at least part of their mission to be the spreading of Social Justice far and wide.

幾乎都以發揚社會公平為己任

Here’s the Mission Statement of the AFL-CIO,

美國勞工聯合會產業工會聯合會的宗旨如下

but it could be the mission statement for a thousand such organizations:

但這可能也是其他一千個類似組織的宗旨

“The mission of the AFL-CIO is to improve the lives of working families -- to bring economic justice

「美國勞工聯合會產業工會聯合會致力於改善勞工家庭的生活 爭取職場上的經濟公平

to the workplace, and social justice to our nation.”

以及我國的社會公平。」

In short, “social justice” is code for good things no one needs to argue for --

簡言之 社會公平無庸置疑地象徵良善的事物

and no one dare be against.

沒人敢反對它

This very much troubled the great economist Friedrich Hayek.

這讓偉大的經濟學家海耶克很頭痛

This is what he wrote in 1976, two years after winning the Nobel Prize in Economics.

他在獲得諾貝爾經濟學獎之後兩年(1976)寫下：

“I have come to feel strongly that the greatest service I can still render to my fellow men

「我衷心地認為現在能為我的同伴人類做的最大貢獻就是

would be that I could make the speakers and writers among them thoroughly ashamed ever

讓所有的講者與作者為使用『社會公平』一詞

again to employ the term ‘social justice’.”

徹底感到慚愧。」

Why was Hayek so upset by what seems like such a positive, and certainly unobjectionable term?

海耶克為什麼對一個看似非常正面且如此婉轉的名詞如此感冒呢

Because Hayek, as he so often did, saw right

因為他一如往常地 看出問題的核心

to the core of the issue. And what he saw frightened him.

他為此感到恐懼

Hayek understood that beneath the political opportunism and intellectual laziness of the

海耶克發現在社會公平這個名詞的政治機會主義和缺乏思考之下

term “social justice” was a pernicious philosophical claim,

是個危險的哲學主張

namely that freedom must be sacrificed in order to redistribute income.

也就是說為了重新分配利益 必須犧牲自由

Ultimately, “social justice” is about the state amassing ever increasing power in

歸根究底 社會公平是社會凝聚不斷壯大的力量來做「好事」

order to, do “good things.” What are good things?

「好事」指的是什麼呢？

Well, whatever the champions of social justice decide this week.

就看社會公平的贏家這禮拜決定了什麼

But first, last and always it is the cause of economic redistribution.

但無論如何 這總是經濟上重新分配的起因

According to the doctrine of Social Justice, the haves always have too much, the have nots,

根據社會公平的原則 富者過富 貧者過貧

never have enough. You don’t have to take my word for it.

你不一定得相信我

That is precisely how a UN report on Social Justice defines the term:

這就是聯合國關於社會公平報告中對該名詞的定義：

“Social justice may be broadly understood as the fair and compassionate distribution

大眾通常認為社會公平是把經濟成長下的果實

of the fruits of economic growth.

公平且有同情心地分配

Social justice is not possible without strong and coherent redistributive policies

如果沒有公共機關制定並施行有力的一系列再分配政策

conceived and implemented by public agencies.” I repeat: “Strong and coherent redistributive

社會公平就不可能實現 我再強調一次：公共機關制定施行有力的

policies conceived and implemented by public agencies.”

一系列再分配政策

And it gets worse.

事實上情況更加惡化

The UN report goes on to insist that: “Present-day believers in an absolute truth identified

聯合國報告堅持這個觀點：當今根據美德和公平捍衛絕對真理的人

with virtue and justice are neither willing nor desirable companions for the defenders

不歡迎也不希望有反社會公平者存在

of social justice.” Translation: if you believe truth and justice

也就是說：如果你認為的真理和正義

are concepts independent of the agenda of the forces of progress as defined by the left,

和左派所認定的定義不同

you are an enemy of social justice.

那麼你就是社會公平的敵人

Compassion – or social justice -- is when government takes your money and gives it to someone else.

同情或社會公平是政府拿走你的錢並將之給予他人

Greed is when you want to keep it.

若你不願給予，那麼你就是貪心的

The underlying point of social justice, then, amounts to a sweeping indictment of a free society.

社會公平造成自由社會的反彈點在於

It suggests that any perceived unfairness,

它暗示了只要你自認覺得不公平

or sorrow, or economic want must be addressed by yet another government effort to remedy

不幸或是想要買足更多物質慾望，政府都必須

that unfairness, that sorrow, or that economic want.

予以滿足

All we need to do is invoke the abracadabra phrase “social justice” and we’re on our way.

我們只需要念出「社會公平」就能夠暢行無阻

The invocation of social justice always works from the assumption that the right people

社會公平的咒語僅對那些特定的人有效

– the anointed few – can simply impose fairness, prosperity and any other good thing

社會上的少數人 他們可以輕而易舉地提倡公平、繁榮還有其他你可以想到的

you can think of. And the only institution capable of imposing social justice is the state.

良善事務。 唯一能夠以社會公平為名的機構就是國家

And keep in mind, the conventional wisdom among liberal elites

記住了 自由主義菁英中的傳統智慧便是

is that conservatives are the ones who want to impose their values on everyone else.

保守主義者就是那些想強制他人接受自己想法的人

The self-declared champions of social justice believe the state must remedy and can remedy

這些自詡為贏家的社會公平支持者認為

all perceived wrongs. Anyone who disagrees is an enemy of what is

一切錯誤。 任何反對者都是良善和正確事務的敵人

good and right. And the state must therefore coerce them

因此國家必須被強迫做能促進社會公平

to do what is socially just. And that, as Hayek prophesied, is no longer a free society.

之事。 不過這就如海耶克所預言，就不是個自由的社會了

Is that the kind of society you want to live in?

這是你想居住的的社會嗎？

If it isn’t, beware of what will be done in the name of social justice.

如果不是，你必須開始注意那些藉由社會公平之名做出的事情

I’m Jonah Goldberg of the American Enterprise Institute and National Review for Prager University.

我是來自普雷格大學美國企業機構與國家研究中心的強納金柏格