What is social justice? It seems to be the attainment of outcomes desired by its proponents. There a many outcomes that would serve the many conceptions of social justice; for example:
Admissions to prestigious high schools, universities, and rigorous post-graduate programs (e.g., medicine, the “hard sciences”) that reflect the racial and ethnic makeup of the populace.
Higher wages than would be paid if employers were free to set offer wages that attract requisite numbers of qualified workers.
Proportionate representation of various racial, ethnic, and “gender” groups in workplaces, in movies, on TV programs, etc.
There are many more conceptions of social justice, but those are enough to set the stage for my modest proposal. Like other conceptions of social justice, they propose outcomes that would not obtain if ability and accomplishment were all that mattered. The result, which proponents of social justice will not acknowledge, is that it yields outcomes like these:
Less-capable students who (a) fail at higher rates than those whom they replace in student bodies and (b) if they do not fail are less qualified (on average) than those whom they replaced.
Higher prices for consumers and unemployment for those workers who cannot get first-rung jobs because employers can’t afford to hire them.
Less-capable workers and therefore higher prices for consumers.
Irritated viewers and prospective customers of sponsored products, who rebel by tuning out and spending their money on other entertainments and products.
In sum, the attainment of social justice, as it is nowadays defined, is inflationary, socially divisive, and — most important — a great burden on those who directly bear its costs. It should be noted that in most cases those who bear the costs of social justice are blameless victims of the efforts to attain it.
If the proponents of social justice were truly committed to it, they wouldn’t pursue goals that mean higher prices for consumers (including the poor); more unemployment for young (mainly black) job-seekers; failure for many members of the groups they seek to advance; or second-rate teachers, accountants, lawyers, doctors, rocket scientists, etc. Or, in the alternative, they would pay for the privilege of seeing social justice enacted.
But inasmuch as the proponents of social justice are unlikely to cease their agitation, it seems only fair (just, if you will) to pay for it by making the proponents put their money where their mouths are. They would compensate the victims of social justice: consumers, taxpayers, employers, co-workers, and others (e.g., rejected applicants, persons passed over for promotions). The compensation would include not only the discounted present value of lost earnings but also hefty payments for loss of socio-economic status.
All subsidies would be computed and extracted by an independent government body. Its agents — in keeping with precedents that have been established in connection with the war on terror, the Trump-Russia connection, and the crackdown on MAGA Republicans — would use all governmental means of surveillance to identify proponents of social justice and the victims thereof. The agency would then — in keeping with the powers that have been ceded to regulatory agencies — levy appropriate taxes (progressive ones, to be sure), collect amounts due, impose fines for late payment and non-payment, and seize property and/or impose prison sentences for gross deliquincies.
That, my friends, is social justice on steroids.