In the essay, Morrison argues that the concept of social justice is incoherent and that it

is based on a misunderstanding of the nature of freedom and the market. He argues

that the market is a spontaneous order that arises from the interactions of individuals,
and that it is not possible to plan or control the market in order to achieve social
justice.

Morrison also argues that the concept of social justice is often used to justify the
redistribution of wealth, which he believes is a violation of individual liberty. He
argues that the government should not interfere in the market or in the distribution of
wealth, and that individuals should be free to keep the fruits of their labor.

The essay has been cited by other scholars in the field of law and economics. It has
also been criticized by some scholars who argue that it does not adequately address
the problem of poverty and inequality.

 The concept of social justice is incoherent because it is impossible to define a just

distribution of wealth. Any attempt to do so would require making subjective
judgments about the value of different goods and services, and about the relative
merits of different individuals.
 The market is a spontaneous order that arises from the interactions of individuals. It is
not possible to plan or control the market in order to achieve social justice. Any
attempt to do so would inevitably lead to unintended consequences and would
undermine the efficiency of the market.
 The concept of social justice is often used to justify the redistribution of wealth,
which Morrison believes is a violation of individual liberty. He argues that individuals
should be free to keep the fruits of their labor, and that the government should not
interfere in the market or in the distribution of wealth.

Morrison's argument is based on the work of the Austrian economist Friedrich Hayek,
who argued that the market is a superior system for allocating resources than any
system that is centrally planned. Hayek believed that the market is self-organizing and
self-correcting, and that it is not possible to improve on its results by government
intervention.

Morrison's argument has been criticized by some scholars who argue that it does not
adequately address the problem of poverty and inequality. They argue that the market
can lead to concentrations of wealth that are harmful to society, and that the
government has a role to play in redistributing wealth in order to promote equality and
social justice.

The debate over the role of government in achieving social justice is a complex one,
and there is no easy answer. Morrison's essay provides a thoughtful contribution to
this debate, and it is worth reading if you are interested in the topic.

here is a more detailed summary of Morrison's argument:

 The concept of social justice is incoherent. Morrison argues that there is no
objective way to define a just distribution of wealth. Any attempt to do so would
require making subjective judgments about the value of different goods and services,
and about the relative merits of different individuals. For example, some people might
believe that a just distribution of wealth would be one in which everyone has equal
shares, while others might believe that it would be one in which people are rewarded
according to their contributions to society. There is no way to resolve these
disagreements objectively, and so the concept of social justice is incoherent.
 The market is a spontaneous order. Morrison argues that the market is not a system
that can be planned or controlled by the government. It is a spontaneous order that
arises from the interactions of individuals. The market is constantly evolving and
adapting, and it is impossible for the government to predict how it will operate in any
given situation. Any attempt to control the market would inevitably lead to
unintended consequences.
 Redistribution of wealth is a violation of individual liberty. Morrison argues that
the concept of social justice is often used to justify the redistribution of wealth, which
he believes is a violation of individual liberty. He argues that individuals should be
free to keep the fruits of their labor, and that the government should not interfere in
the market or in the distribution of wealth.

Morrison's argument is based on the work of the Austrian economist Friedrich Hayek,
who argued that the market is a superior system for allocating resources than any
system that is centrally planned. Hayek believed that the market is self-organizing and
self-correcting, and that it is not possible to improve on its results by government
intervention.

Morrison's argument has been criticized by some scholars who argue that it does not
adequately address the problem of poverty and inequality. They argue that the market
can lead to concentrations of wealth that are harmful to society, and that the
government has a role to play in redistributing wealth in order to promote equality and
social justice.

The debate over the role of government in achieving social justice is a complex one,
and there is no easy answer. Morrison's essay provides a thoughtful contribution to
this debate, and it is worth reading if you are interested in the topic.

I hope this summary is more detailed. Let me know if you have any other questions.