The Evolution of Justice in Economic Thought

For thousands of years, the idea of justice—especially social justice—has been at the heart of human thought. Philosophers, economists, and political theorists have grappled with it time and again. Today, I ask:

“Have we misunderstood what justice truly means?”

Social justice—a term as controversial as it is popular—was reportedly first introduced by John Stuart Mill as “distributive justice.” But what does it really mean?

Friedrich Hayek once said:

“No two people can agree on what social justice really means.”

I argue that social justice is nothing more than a socialist reinvention of justice.

In many societies, including mine, social justice is vaguely understood as the “fair” or “appropriate” distribution of wealth and opportunities. But what makes a distribution “fair”? Under what conditions? According to which criteria?

Socialists advocate for equal income distribution. They claim that taking a dollar from the rich and giving it to the poor increases overall utility. They entrust this crucial task to the state.

But here is the question:

Who has the right to determine utility for another person?

This idea, though well-intentioned, is deeply flawed and dangerous. In societies where the state controls the economy and dictates resource allocation, wealth is often acquired not through merit or competition, but through corrupt ties and rent-seeking.

Socialists have long argued that a central system managing the distribution of goods and services is necessary for achieving equal distribution.

But this claim is problematic.

As Dr. Mousa Ghani-Nejad notes in his article “The Mirage of Social Justice”, quoting Hayek:

“The market economy relies on the price mechanism—a system of signals guiding producers to supply what society demands most. Prices convey information about consumer preferences, enabling efficient resource allocation. Distribution is an unintended outcome of this process, inherently unpredictable. When a central authority attempts to impose social justice through distribution, it disrupts the price signals and reduces market efficiency. Any direct distributive policy under the banner of social justice undermines the market’s economic order.”

In developing countries like ours, confusing the ideal of social justice with outdated distributive justice leads to anti-development policies.

This confusion creates an unlikely alliance between conservative forces—who fear change and see distributive justice as a tool to preserve the status quo—and progressive leftists seeking wealth redistribution.

The result is a government monopolizing economic power, blocking individual initiatives and market competition.

Latin American countries exemplify this dynamic.

There, mercantilist traditions and political forces aiming to redistribute wealth have turned governments into sole economic and political actors.

Adopting social justice uncritically undermines the dignity of “rights” and “law” in society.

Final Thoughts

Justice without social and civil liberty is hollow and meaningless.

When law is replaced by authoritarian populism—like Soviet socialism, German National Socialism, or Fascist Italy—freedom is destroyed and utopian tyranny prevails.

When will we see the promised pure socialism?

After all these experiences, are we still trapped in the same place?