"Social Justice" Requires State Violence Against Individuals
Hayek knew this -- and told a young Jeff Greenfield that social justice requires that the state treat people unequally:

The classical demand is that the state ought to treat all people equally in spite of the fact that they are very unequal. You can't deduce from this that because people are unequal you ought to treat them unequally in order to make them equal. And that's what social justice amounts to. It's a demand that the state should treat people differently in order to place them in the same position. . . .To make people equal a goal of governmental policy would force government to treat people very unequally indeed.

Jeff Miltmore writes at the FEE link above about what correcting "imbalances" looks like, in "a notable recent case was Harvard, which stands accused of discriminating against prospective students of Asian descent":

During the trial, a dean of the school admitted that Harvard uses different admission standards based on the race and gender of the prospective students. Asians must receive an SAT score of at least 1350--250 points higher than the threshold for Native American, black, and Hispanic high school students--to receive a recruitment letter.

Hayek's logic is correct: social justice demands treating people unequally.

"Harvard has engaged in, and continues to engage in, intentional discrimination against Asian-Americans," said Adam Mortara, an attorney for the plaintiffs.

School officials maintain they simply are trying to "break the cycle" of injustice. But this merely proves Hayek's point that social justice requires treating people unequally. To treat prospective Asian students differently in ways that adversely affect them is unequal treatment--regardless of whatever lofty moral goals Harvard cites.

This is the fundamental question of our time and the source of most of our political discord: should we treat people equally or treat them differently based on their race, gender, or class to correct collective imbalances in "wealth, opportunities, and privileges within a society"?

One can choose to be one side or the other, but there's no denying there is a choice. Because, all semantic games aside, Hayek's logic is correct: social justice demands treating people unequally.

America, history shows, failed to uphold the ideal of treating people equally. The results were disastrous. We must not repeat the mistake.