We are a society that loves to put adjectives to words, phrases or ideas that we like to espouse. In that way we make that concept our own; we tag it with the distinction worthy of being used by such highly and well-meaning people such as ourselves.

Politicians love to do it too. And we love them for it.

How else could we possibly be graced by the sound of such great titles as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or the Federal Interagency Committee for the Management of Noxious and Exotic Weeds (which is a real thing and still receives millions of your tax dollars when other government agencies pay them to do their work)?

These things sound perfectly wonderful. Who doesn’t want to protect patients or get affordable care? And, even to me, I guess the management of the noxious and exotic weeds sounds like a truly noble goal for such a government as ours.

And what about social justice? Justice is a good thing, right? It’s mentioned in our Constitution and the Declaration of Independence and appears in an innumerable number of applause lines in speeches both here in the United States and abroad. In a world increasingly obsessed with a more social lifestyle, the leap to more social justice doesn’t seem too far-fetched, or such a bad idea for that matter.

But each time we modify a word or concept with our own additions and ideas, it becomes an entirely different animal indeed. The ideal of “social justice” is inherently separate and apart from the concept of justice.

So what’s the difference? Well, I’m not one to write an opinion piece without at least cracking open a dictionary or opening up Dictionary.com.

And so goes: Justice — “rightfulness, or lawfulness.”

And: Social Justice — “the distribution of advantages and disadvantages within a society.”

Call me crazy, but that seems more than just a cosmetic name change to me. In fact, those definitions don’t seem to match up to me at all. The law doesn’t call for the distribution of advantages and disadvantages. Nor does rightfulness come from taking from some and giving to others arbitrarily.

So why is there this recent push for social justice by some? The government, through the social contract of the U.S. Constitution, administers justice in the courts. But under the guise of a “social justice,” the government would also become the tool used by bureaucrats in, as President Barack Obama said at a Missouri campaign rally in 2008, “fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” It would necessarily grow to even larger proportions. Through the tagline of “social justice,” those who use it for this purpose inevitably change the true definition of justice and tweak it to meet their needs.

In its most egalitarian of definitions, social justice is the means to an end of a completely equal society; each member having the same resources, starting point and ending point.

In its most flowery of definitions, social justice seeks to enrich and respect differences in our society. But these definitions are contradictory. The social justice that actively seeks to even out individuals, and yet also with the same determination, fully appreciate individuals’ differences and contributions to society presents a paradox that nullifies each other.

The liberty of individuals necessarily comes with the consequence of inequity at some point. Individuals inherently possess different skills and abilities; and, with the addition of liberty, they have certain advantages and disadvantages in society that speak to the uniqueness of each individual. Therefore, the crusaders of social justice must always be vigilant to keep a watchful eye out for freedom, and squash it — for that liberty promotes inequity and is dangerous to those with a cookie-cutter mentality.

Social justice isn’t true justice. It’s a modified form to be used to promote the ideals of big government and generosity … with other people’s money. Social justice is the enabler of phrases like “you didn’t build that,” the license to tax and regulate from cradle to grave (literally), and the perversion of justice that runs contrary to free market ideals.

Like I said before, we like to adapt things to suit our needs. In that spirit, I have adapted a quote from Barry Goldwater that I think appropriately fits: Let our justice, so focused and so dedicated, not be made fuzzy and futile by unthinking and stupid labels.

Dylan is a freshman in Business. He can be reached at [email protected].