The term “social justice” has been around since 1840 and has continued to morph over the years. “Global justice” is simply another in a long line of interchangeable prefixes such as “national justice,” “economic justice,” etc. which precede the word justice. Numerous policies are advocated under the name of “global justice”. This article will look at the most popular proposal for income redistribution and consider its intellectual foundations and how it relates to justice, as well as its real-world implications. The most obvious and theoretically most easily surmountable obstacle inherent to this idea is the very definition of the term "social justice". As the years pass, the term grows to encompass an ever-increasing number of issues. It can mean anything from income redistribution to AIDS prevention. For some contemporary examples, the student activist group Global Justice1 does not have a definition of the term it uses so prominently as a name, but states that its purpose is about “AIDS, trade and child survival.” Nowhere does the organization attempt to explain why their particular position on those particular issues has anything to do with “global justice.” USC professor Robin DG Kelley is the executive editor of the “Social Justice Wiki”2. The stated goal of the online encyclopedia is to document various activist groups and movements3. Any attempt to discern any further insight into the term “social justice” from the same encyclopedia dedicated to its name will prove a failure as there is no indication as to why those specific groups fall under the banner of social justice and other groups do not, made exception for purely subjective and arbitrary guidelines4. The pervasiveness and vacuity of the term speaks volumes about...... middle of the document ......and about “society”, but rather we have a clear case of who is being unfair to whom. The incredible irony of this situation would be that this legitimate and justifiable form of “global justice” (in which case the perpetrators were unjust in their individual conduct and are clearly identified) would usually be invoked to counter policies implemented precisely under the justification regime of “social justice”. Perhaps “social justice” activists can redeem themselves from this past mistake, but only if they begin to defend the injustice of trade barriers and immigration restrictions; as this is the only valid application of “justice on a global scale”. Any other justification for income redistribution leads to innocent individuals who have rightly acquired their material wealth being unfairly forced to pay compensation for the suffering of others who had no role in promoting..