On Hacienda Luisita and Social Justice
Here are mythoughts on the Supreme Court’s latest decision to redistribute Hacienda Luisita, owned by the country’s
most powerful and influential political clan Aquino-Cojuangcos, and the anti-concept of social justice.
Here’s a news report from GMA News:
The Surpeme Court, voting 14-0, has ordered the distribution of almost 5,000 hectares of land to some 6,000 farmer beneficiaries of Hacienda Luisita Inc.(HLI), the sugar plantation owned by the Cojuangco side of the family of President Benigno Aquino III.
In a 56-page decision, the 14 magistrates “recalled and set aside” the option given to the farmer beneficiaries — some of them members of Alyansa ng mga Manggagawang Bukid sa Hacienda Luisita (Ambala) and Farm Workers Agrarian Reform Movement (FARM) — to remain as stockholders of HLI.
The court “partially granted” the motions for reconsideration separately filed by the farmer beneficiaries regarding this option. Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio inhibited himself from the process.
HLI spokesperson Antonio Ligon said the estate’s management will respect the decision, but will still have to study the full decision to be able to decide their next move.
“We still have to look at all angles of the decision, pero ang maganda dito, positive naman itong decision. Walang aversion. We are not against the land distribution ruling,” Ligon said in a phone interview.
I am not familiar with the highly complicated facts of this controversial case. If the Cojuangcos entered into a valid agreement with the government, and if such an agreement was done in good faith and did not involve any form of force and coercion on the part of the government, then they should fulfill that agreement or promise.
However, I am NOT in favor of land reform or any form of redistribution of land and/or wealth. It is already irrelevant how people or families acquired their wealth or vast landholdings. Although a number of oligarchic families used the government or used political connections to their advantage, the entire Filipino nation was guilty of mass ignorance, collective support of the system, and inaction. The Filipinos supported the oligarchic system thru their inaction, expressed or implied support. It is irrelevant whether the oligarchs controlled the PH media that have been idiotizing Filipinos for decades. There is no crime against intentional IDIOTATION or deliberate spread or diffusion of propaganda or disinformation.
A facebooker asked: “E san ba nanggaling ang pera ng pamilya nya?”
This is the reason why we should have a limited, Republican-capitalist government. What we have since time immemorial was a form of collectivistic, statist government. And this form of government has been benefiting the oligarchs. The Cojuangcos and other modern-day oligarchs, including those who perished in the past decades for failing to maintain their economic-political dominance, were beneficiaries of our system of collectivistic mixed economy. What we have is a mixed economy bordering on socialism.
Under a limited capitalist system, these oligarchs would have been punished for corrupting the government or for using political connections to enrich themselves. BUT our current system allows the oligarchs and their political benefactors and/or beneficiaries to achieve state-supported political dominance. The VERY PROOF to this statement is our oligarchic protectionist constitution.
How did the Cojuangcos and other oligarchs acquire their wealth? YOU/WE SUPPORTED THEM!!!
On the anti-concept of social justice:
John Rawls must be destroyed. This is how the Rawlsian theory of SOCIALIST “justice” infected RP’s intellectuals and the Supreme Court…
The anti-concept of social justice represents the many flaws of the 1987 Constitution.
Social justice, according to Jose P. Laurel:
“Social justice means the promotion of the welfare of all people, of the adaptation by the government of measures calculated to insure economic stability of the component elements of society through the maintenance of a proper economic and social equilibrium in the interrelation of the members of the community. Social justice must be founded on the recognition of necessary interdependence among… diverse units of society and of the protection that should be equally and evenly extended to all groups… It is neither communism nor despotism nor atomism nor anarchy, but the humanization of laws and the equalization of social and economic forces of the State.”
Laurel, in Calalang v. Williams, 70 Phil. 726 (1940), further wrote:
“Social justice is neither communism, nor despotism, nor atomism, nor anarchy,” but the humanization of laws and the equalization of social and economic forces by the State so that justice in its rational and objectively secular conception may at least be approximated. Social justice means the promotion of the welfare of all the people, the adoption by the Government of measures calculated to insure economic stability of all the competent elements of society, through the maintenance of a proper economic and social equilibrium in the interrelations of the members of the community, constitutionally, through the adoption of measures legally justifiable, or extra-constitutionally, through the exercise of powers underlying the existence of all governments on the time-honored principle of salus populi est suprema lex. Social justice, therefore, must be founded on the recognition of the necessity of interdependence among divers and diverse units of a society and of the protection that should be equally and evenly extended to all groups as a combined force in our social and economic life, consistent with the fundamental and paramount objective of the state of promoting the health, comfort, and quiet of all persons, and of bringing about “the greatest good to the greatest number.”
That’s pure BS and idiotic!
And we have that BULLSHIT “Social Justice” in our constitution… Social justice simply means the government may control the means of production and redistribute wealth.
John Rawls’s “social justice”, which infected many Filipino intellectuals, academics, and even the Philippine Supreme Court and the 1987 Constitution, justifies the alleged virtue or goodness of welfare state. Rawls is being admired by both the leftists and the rightists simply because his political philosophy or theory is full of basic contradictions and compromises.
It is the anti-concept of “social justice” that legitimizes the Philippines’s welfare state and socialistic policies like land reform, redistribution of wealth, excessive economic regulations, protectionism, welfare programs, among others. Also, it is this anti-concept of social justice, which is a new derivative of strict egalitarianism and part of the New Left’s intellectual and moral ammunition, that has been impoverishing this semi-socialist country. It must be exposed, rejected, and destroyed.
Here are Ayn Rand’s take on the Rawlsian theory of justice:
Here’s what Ayn Rand’s intellectual heir, Leonard Peikoff, wrote in his article “Moral Inflation”:
Some unphilosophical, eclectic altruists, invoking such concepts as “inalienable rights,” “personal freedom,” “private choice,” have claimed that service to others, though morally obligatory, should not be compulsory. The committed, philosophical altruists, however, are consistent: recognizing that such concepts represent an individualist approach to ethics and that this is incompatible with the altruist morality, they declare that there is nothing wrong with compulsion in a good cause—that the use of force to counteract selfishness is ethically justified—and more: that it is ethically mandatory.
Every man, they argue, is morally the property of others—of those others it is his lifelong duty to serve; as such, he has no moral right to invest the major part of his time and energy in his own private concerns. If he attempts it, if he refuses voluntarily to make the requisite sacrifices, he is by that fact harming others, i.e., depriving them of what is morally theirs—he is violating men’s rights, i.e., the right of others to his service—he is a moral delinquent, and it is an assertion of morality if others forcibly intervene to extract from him the fulfillment of his altruist obligations, on which he is attempting to default. Justice, they conclude, “social justice,” demands the initiation of force against the non-sacrificial individual; it demands that others put a stop to his evil. Thus has moral fervor been joined to the rule of physical force, raising it from a criminal tactic to a governing principle of human relationships.
From her article “A Nation’s Unity”:
Altruism gives to the use of force a moral sanction, making it not only an unavoidable practical recourse, but also a positive virtue, an expression of militant righteousness.
A man is morally the property of others—of those others it is his duty to serve—argue Fichte, Hegel, and the rest, explicitly or by implication. As such, a man has no moral right to refuse to make the requisite sacrifices for others. If he attempts it, he is depriving men of what is properly theirs, he is violating men’s rights, their right to his service—and it is, therefore, an assertion of morality if others intervene forcibly and compel him to fulfill his obligations. “Social justice” in this view not only allows but demands the use of force against the non-sacrificial individual.
It is true that your “salus populi est suprema lex” may sound noble like the rest of the liberal, social concepts being taught at UP and all universities and colleges today, but the application of logic, which is an art of non-contradictory identification, tells us that it is against reality. One should understand that contradictions cannot exist. Concepts should not contradict man’s process of cognition. We need concepts for our survival. Like language, concepts are our tool of cognition, which means they should aid man’s proper way of thinking through the application of logic and reason. We have to use logic to know whether a particular concept is evil or against our rights and nature. You must ask: what is the implication of this concept (e.i. “salus populi est suprema lex” or “right to education”) to my right to life, liberty, property, and my pursuit of happiness? Will it permit the government to perpetually tax me more and impose more burden and obligation on my person and on my capacity to earn for a living just to serve my neighbors? If I have the capacity to survive so does my neighbor. Should I feel guilty for being successful or for being able to survive? Should I be held to pay for the “unluckiness” or misery of other people?