Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

darwinist · Jan 5, 2004, 12:04 pm

Justice has been conceived of by the earliest of mankind and is one of the four cardinal virtues. It accompanies courage, temperance and prudence.

Justice must be in aid of the creation of equal and unbiased society. Where wrong acts are corrected in accordance to what the collected thoughts of one's community believe is fair. I would go further in saying. That in Justice is found against anti social behaviour and material theft. For maintenance of morally and socially acceptable rights.

If the government has already deemed an adult responsible enough to control their own finances, responsible enough to vote, and responsible enough to fight for their country, then certainly they should be deemed responsible enough to provide their own safety

Impenitent · Jan 5, 2004, 02:26 pm

justice is a lie...

justice is whatever the strongest claim is justice and nothing more...

hello_caleb · Jan 5, 2004, 05:38 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
justice is a lie...

justice is whatever the strongest claim is justice and nothing more...<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

so i can kill your mom and get away with it?

G. Adams · Jan 5, 2004, 06:20 pm

If your the strongest power in the given area, yes.

Impenitent · Jan 6, 2004, 01:28 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (hello_caleb,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
justice is a lie...

justice is whatever the strongest claim is justice and nothing more...<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

so i can kill your mom and get away with it?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

you can try...

**Pooeypants** · Jan 6, 2004, 06:01 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (hello_caleb,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
justice is a lie...

justice is whatever the strongest claim is justice and nothing more...<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

so i can kill your mom and get away with it?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Be my guest. Oh and don't forget to get my dad as well. I hate my parents with passion.

lefty · Jan 7, 2004, 01:36 pm

justice goes to the highest bidder. In this society as in societies past, justice has always belonged to those who could afford it, if you are speaking from a purely societal point of view.

white rice · Jan 7, 2004, 05:54 pm

What does justice mean to the environment or future generations? Like all other ideals, justice is about personal perception.

Waychel · Jan 7, 2004, 11:17 pm

I fail to see how doing away with a justice system altogether would help matters – only make them worse. Keep in mind that, as white rice said, justice is a matter of perception. Having some limited involvement in regards to the judicial system myself, I would go so far as to say that EVERY person in EVERY circumstance thinks that they are the victim – even if said person was the actual crook in the matter. In actuality, justice may be blind, but human beings who are not impartial to the matter at hand are both blind and selfish by contrast; a fact which is demonstrated every day in every courtroom with nearly every case.

Without a judicial system, there would otherwise be total anarchy. We would be disenfranchising the weak, sentencing them to be dominated by the strong. Yes, this is how nature is, but keep in mind that nature is without justice at all - as we would be under such a system (or lack thereof).

It is civilization that gave birth to the philosophy of justice, so IMO it is civility that should be exercised in matters of justice just the same. What you are proposing is total barbarism and I can only see it as jeopardizing justice rather than absolutely guaranteeing it.

Utah · Jan 7, 2004, 11:32 pm

[CLAPS]

darwinist · Jan 8, 2004, 10:43 am

Justice Through Each of Our Eyes-

Many political ideas and theories have multiple meanings causing people from varying backgrounds different but distinct reactions. However, one political idea, justice, seems to have a meaning and definition that can be agreed upon by most; being righteous, the principle of just dealings and using the power of authority to maintain just order. The manipulation of the word for the use of a particular side is where the "slipperiness or controversy" of this abstract idea arises, in this situation both sides can argue that they are the righteous ones, making the question be asked, 'who is actually exhibiting the meaning of justice?'

possession of certain natural plants and chemicals a crime, punishable by long prison sentences.

After ten years, eighty-one billion dollars and millions of arrests, the government is still engaged in its "War on Drugs", making it the longest and most costly campaign in US history, which has been done in the name of Justice. These drug laws have been created in order to guard against the negligence of the individual person against himself, these are like laws for seatbelt use and
laws against suicide. Due to these types of laws, many of our civil liberties and natural rights have been infringed upon; this is the main point of the opposition.Jon Stuart Mills and John Locke support this idea that the only claim that government has in controlling the individual is in regard to others.If the government has already deemed an adult responsible enough to control their own finances, responsible enough to vote, and responsible enough to fight for their country, then certainly they should be deemed responsible enough to provide their own safety. In response to claims that these drugs bring about more crimes, violent crimes that are committed against others, like murder, is false.These crimes are due to the war being waged against drugs, a war which was declared by the U.S. itself, and one must remember no war is without casualties taken on both sides.

Now one must decide whether it is more just to protect the freedom of individuals, which is one if America's oldest themes and one of the pillars of the country's founding, or is it more just to have restrictions that the U.S. deems necessary for the safety of the society as a whole.

In order to bring about meaningful change, it's first necessary to understand the society in which we live. So, I begin by looking at the social and economic conditions that induce fear, loneliness, violence, and economic insecurity. I then examine the conditioning processes and agents that produce the masses of people who accept such conditions with hardly a whimper. Those that I examine include sexual repression, the patriarchal family, the education system, organized religion, and the mass media.

We live in a world which is deeply unsatisfying for most people, a world in which many of our most basic needs - for love, peace, freedom, security, and meaning in life - are not being met. Most of us face constant worry about economic survival, loneliness and isolation, or fear of it, and a constant feeling that there's never enough of anything good to go around, be it love, sex or money.

As well, for many - probably most - people, there's a constant fear of violence. And for even more, there's a feeling of powerlessness. The end result is hopelessness, apathy, and often bitterness, meanness, and, all too often, outright sadism.

Why do these conditions exist? There's no grand conspiracy, but there are a number of reasons for this lousy situation, and it's important to understand what we're dealing with if we're going to change it.

The economic situation is a major reason for our present societal difficulties. At present, most people in this country own almost nothing. The top 1% of the population own more than the bottom 90% of the population combined. The top 1% own 40% of the nation's wealth and the next 9% own another 30%, which means that the top 10% own 70% of the nation's wealth; that leaves another 30% of the wealth for the remaining 90% of us, with most of that distributed toward the top end. So, the bottom 50% of the population own nearly nothing - maybe a car and, if we're lucky, a heavily mortgaged house. It's also worth noting that there has been a distinct trend over the last 20 years or so toward a redistribution of wealth toward the upper end of the scale. In other words, since around the time Reagan was elected president, the rich have been getting richer and the poor have been getting poorer; and this trend is continuing under Clinton.

Compounding the economic insecurities most of us face is the problem of physical danger, and the fear of it. Many of the reasons for violence can be traced to economic inequalities, but even more basic is the common belief in violence and coercion as means to an end. This belief is so pervasive that we're often not even aware of it. Perhaps the most important example of this is government. Belief in the necessity of coercion is the foundation of government. Belief in the necessity of coercive organization, that is, government, springs from the belief that people are incapable of voluntary cooperation, and that the only way to get them to behave in a civilized manner is to force them to do so - at the point of a gun if necessary. This leads to things such as extortion and military conscription. Ultimately, it all boils down to the belief that it's OK to push people around if you're powerful enough to do it.

What makes things even worse is that most people not only see violence as the solution to violence, but that they think they have the right to use violence and coercion to force other people to be "moral." This belief comes squarely from the "thou shalts" and "thou shalt nots" of patriarchal religions such as christianity and islam, both of which have long and bloody histories of murdering and torturing nonbelievers, nonconformists, and heretics. So, it's no surprise that those who adhere to such religions have no hesitation in using violence to force others to submit, or simply use it for the sheer joy of inflicting pain. A couple of quotes from the bible illustrate the religious submit-or-die attitude:

The ironic thing about all this is that many of the religious folk most intent upon using violence and coercion to enforce "morality" are themselves quite fearful of becoming victims of violence. Yet the cruel policies they support produce violence.

A good example of this association of violence with "morality" is the war on drugs. It's painfully obvious that drug prohibition is not only destroying our civil liberties, but is also producing a lot of violence and property crime because of the combination of illegality and high profit margins; this results in turf wars by dealers, and crimes committed by drug addicts to support the high price of their habits. All of this should be, and is, obvious, but there is so much fear, authoritarianism and sadism in the general population, and so little ability to analyze data, that the war on drugs continues. And we all pay the price for it through destruction of our liberties, sky-high taxes, and the creation of what could well become a police state.

At the dawn of the modern state, patriarchal religion combined with competition-based economics to produce some truly toxic effects. Put briefly, these effects were the degradation and sexual enslavement of women, and the creation of the patriarchal family.

The available evidence indicates that relations between the sexes in human societies tended to be relatively egalitarian during prehistoric (hunting and gathering) times. But that all changed about 8,000 years ago when human beings began to practice agriculture (large-scale food production). That made it possible, for the first time in human history, for people to create and to accumulate surplus goods on a relatively large scale. There's fairly convincing evidence that almost as soon as this happened inequalities arose (or at least greatly intensified) between the sexes, and that a ruling elite first appeared.

Since one of the functions of a ruling class is to perpetuate itself - and because the early ruling classes consisted of royal families - female sexual exclusivity soon became mandatory. The ruler wanted to know that his children were, in fact, his. A similar thing happened in the lower classes with the advent of private property. Men who accumulated even small amounts of wealth wanted to pass it on to their heirs. So, the patriarchal family was born.

OBKB · Jan 23, 2004, 05:53 am

Robert Green Ingersoll {1833--1899) said:
1.) "Liberty is the blossom and the fruit of [font=Arial][SIZE=3]justice[/font][/SIZE]"
2.) "Morality is the melody of the perfection of conduct"
3.) "The true moral code is intelligence"

I like the quote #1 well enough to have it displayed on the rear glass of my personal automobile.

mbrock59 · Jan 23, 2004, 09:10 am

In the tribal village, justice is understood by all within the small group, and applied. In large nation-states, it is weakened, and various communities are no longer able to interpret their cultural perception of justice, and therefore are no longer able to see that it does in fact occur. True justice in large nations is a goal, not a perfect working model.

Ron · Jan 23, 2004, 10:15 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (white rice,)
What does justice mean to the environment or future generations? Like all other ideals, justice is about personal perception.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

As a newbie, I should warn readers I fall into the "right-wing- fundamental Christian" sort and view things through this lens. That said...

I disagree with the idea that justice is about personal perception. If that is true, Saddam was just in his actions, Hitler in his, bin Ladin in his, and so on. No, justice, as stated at the beginning of this thread, is a cardinal virtue. I believe this to mean a universal moral base from which we all ought to agree.

Now that is the key word, ought. What we humans do and what we ought to do is very different is it not??

G. Adams · Jan 23, 2004, 12:23 pm

What we ought to do is personal opinion, as is what can be defined as just. In Hitler's eyes, and Saddam's eyes, and every other dictators, what they were doing was just. All the matters is who has the will and ability to enforce their version of justice.

Ron · Jan 23, 2004, 12:45 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,)
What we ought to do is personal opinion, as is what can be defined as just. In Hitler's eyes, and Saddam's eyes, and every other dictators, what they were doing was just. All the matters is who has the will and ability to enforce their version of justice.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

So anyone having enough power is applying justice by any action they choose? This does not make any sense to me. I am not one to subscribe to moral relativism and that is what is being described here- "It is justice if I say it is justice."

I believe there are moral absolutes, having remained absolutes throughout human history and not influenced by any cultural bias. I know of no culture where theft is a "good" thing, here and now or any time in history. Theft has always been "bad" behavior.If no set of moral ideas were truer or better than any other, there would be no sense in preferring civilized morality to savage morality. The fact is that we all do believe some moralities are better than others.

The moment we say one morality is better than another, we are measuring both by some standard, saying one of them conforms to the standard more closely than the other. Keep in mind, now, that this standard is neither of the two, but rather the measuring rod in which we are applying the two moralities.

OBKB · Jan 23, 2004, 02:13 pm

"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." (Luke 19:27)

G. Adams · Jan 23, 2004, 02:20 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Ron,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,)
What we ought to do is personal opinion, as is what can be defined as just. In Hitler's eyes, and Saddam's eyes, and every other dictators, what they were doing was just. All the matters is who has the will and ability to enforce their version of justice.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

So anyone having enough power is applying justice by any action they choose? This does not make any sense to me. I am not one to subscribe to moral relativism and that is what is being described here- "It is justice if I say it is justice."

I believe there are moral absolutes, having remained absolutes throughout human history and not influenced by any cultural bias. I know of no culture where theft is a "good" thing, here and now or any time in history. Theft has always been "bad" behavior.If no set of moral ideas were truer or better than any other, there would be no sense in preferring civilized morality to savage morality. The fact is that we all do believe some moralities are better than others.

The moment we say one morality is better than another, we are measuring both by some standard, saying one of them conforms to the standard more closely than the other. Keep in mind, now, that this standard is neither of the two, but rather the measuring rod in which we are applying the two moralities.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

It is not justice if I say it is, it is justice if I make it justice. There is no such thing as right or wrong, good or bad, even if everyone in the world could agree to what is right/wrong.

IF God exists, and has set a universal code for what is right/wrong, then yes there clearly is universal values. But, because God has put them there, it is only right/wrong because God has the ability to enforce it.

Despite how it sounds, I personally do have codes and values for myself to live by, and if someone goes against what I feel is right or wrong I will fight it because
a) I'd feel guilty to not to
b) Because I can

But this is just my conscience, combined with my will to enforce what I feel is right.

darwinist · Jan 23, 2004, 04:40 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
I believe there are moral absolutes, having remained absolutes throughout human history and not influenced by any cultural bias. I know of no culture where theft is a "good" thing, here and now or any time in history. Theft has always been "bad" behavior.If no set of moral ideas were truer or better than any other, there would be no sense in preferring civilized morality to savage morality. The fact is that we all do believe some moralities are better than others. <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Yes Ron, here you have the basis of the whole thread of justice. But i agree with what some of Adams has to say. Religoen has in history been used as a weapon to enforce someone's vision of justice. Just like Hitler or Saddam. Or the US or UK government today.

You have to stand upon the Moral high ground, then do not move from there. The USA went to war, over weapons of mass destruction. Which i don't think anyone believes. Read my thread about the Iraq War or Adams thread about Euro and Oil. It mentions there. That the USA are commiting some of the very things, that they set out to stop. If they went to war for a lie, that is even worse. But this all boils down to duplicity of morality. They teach all school children. That it is bad to bully. But what does the USA do, for an example. It bullies poorer nations into agree with the WTO.

The basis of justice. Has to be simple. The law has to enforce justice. Not anything else. As it does now. Like you mention, theft is a bad thing. In every society. You will not find any place, where they say. It is ok to steal. The same applies i believe to murder. To put it simple, you are not allow to do anything to harm another person. Physically or financially.

The biggest problem that i see in the current system. Is the duel values. If i want to commit a crime. There is the police to stop me. But i happen to know, that companies and governments are breaking the laws left, right and centre. What do i have to do? I can't call the police. I have to sue. Write loads of letters and have loads of cash. This is not just.

Anarchist Patriot · Jan 23, 2004, 05:25 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (hello_caleb,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
justice is a lie...

justice is whatever the strongest claim is justice and nothing more...<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

so i can kill your mom and get away with it?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Of course you can. Just ask President Bush.

Jan 5, 2004, 12:04 pm	#1 (permalink) (top)
darwinist Igneous Magma Location: Netherlands Posts: 200	Justice has been conceived of by the earliest of mankind and is one of the four cardinal virtues. It accompanies courage, temperance and prudence. Justice must be in aid of the creation of equal and unbiased society. Where wrong acts are corrected in accordance to what the collected thoughts of one's community believe is fair. I would go further in saying. That in Justice is found against anti social behaviour and material theft. For maintenance of morally and socially acceptable rights. If the government has already deemed an adult responsible enough to control their own finances, responsible enough to vote, and responsible enough to fight for their country, then certainly they should be deemed responsible enough to provide their own safety What goes 'up', must come 'down', unless it goes around and round.

Jan 5, 2004, 02:26 pm	#2 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	justice is a lie... justice is whatever the strongest claim is justice and nothing more... "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Jan 5, 2004, 05:38 pm	#3 (permalink) (top)
hello_caleb Sedimentary Rock Posts: 13	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) justice is a lie... justice is whatever the strongest claim is justice and nothing more...<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> so i can kill your mom and get away with it?

Jan 5, 2004, 06:20 pm	#4 (permalink) (top)
G. Adams Fyrdman Location: Middlesbrough UK Posts: 4,152	If your the strongest power in the given area, yes. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill

Jan 6, 2004, 01:28 am	#5 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (hello_caleb,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) justice is a lie... justice is whatever the strongest claim is justice and nothing more...<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> so i can kill your mom and get away with it?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> you can try... "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Jan 6, 2004, 06:01 am	#6 (permalink) (top)
Pooeypants Neo Moderator Location: England Posts: 5,467	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (hello_caleb,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) justice is a lie... justice is whatever the strongest claim is justice and nothing more...<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> so i can kill your mom and get away with it?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Be my guest. Oh and don't forget to get my dad as well. I hate my parents with passion. War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is strength Harness the power of Ingsoc, then you can capture someone killed the year before

Jan 7, 2004, 01:36 pm	#7 (permalink) (top)
lefty Sedimentary Rock Posts: 17	justice goes to the highest bidder. In this society as in societies past, justice has always belonged to those who could afford it, if you are speaking from a purely societal point of view.

Jan 7, 2004, 05:54 pm	#8 (permalink) (top)
white rice Igneous Magma Posts: 372	What does justice mean to the environment or future generations? Like all other ideals, justice is about personal perception. Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups

Jan 7, 2004, 11:17 pm	#9 (permalink) (top)
Waychel Supercalifragilistic Posts: 431	I fail to see how doing away with a justice system altogether would help matters – only make them worse. Keep in mind that, as white rice said, justice is a matter of perception. Having some limited involvement in regards to the judicial system myself, I would go so far as to say that EVERY person in EVERY circumstance thinks that they are the victim – even if said person was the actual crook in the matter. In actuality, justice may be blind, but human beings who are not impartial to the matter at hand are both blind and selfish by contrast; a fact which is demonstrated every day in every courtroom with nearly every case. Without a judicial system, there would otherwise be total anarchy. We would be disenfranchising the weak, sentencing them to be dominated by the strong. Yes, this is how nature is, but keep in mind that nature is without justice at all - as we would be under such a system (or lack thereof). It is civilization that gave birth to the philosophy of justice, so IMO it is civility that should be exercised in matters of justice just the same. What you are proposing is total barbarism and I can only see it as jeopardizing justice rather than absolutely guaranteeing it. Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee.

Jan 7, 2004, 11:32 pm	#10 (permalink) (top)
Utah Molten Ash Posts: 31	[CLAPS] http://elogowear.com/utah/open.jpg

Jan 8, 2004, 10:43 am	#11 (permalink) (top)
darwinist Igneous Magma Location: Netherlands Posts: 200	Justice Through Each of Our Eyes- Many political ideas and theories have multiple meanings causing people from varying backgrounds different but distinct reactions. However, one political idea, justice, seems to have a meaning and definition that can be agreed upon by most; being righteous, the principle of just dealings and using the power of authority to maintain just order. The manipulation of the word for the use of a particular side is where the "slipperiness or controversy" of this abstract idea arises, in this situation both sides can argue that they are the righteous ones, making the question be asked, 'who is actually exhibiting the meaning of justice?' possession of certain natural plants and chemicals a crime, punishable by long prison sentences. After ten years, eighty-one billion dollars and millions of arrests, the government is still engaged in its "War on Drugs", making it the longest and most costly campaign in US history, which has been done in the name of Justice. These drug laws have been created in order to guard against the negligence of the individual person against himself, these are like laws for seatbelt use and laws against suicide. Due to these types of laws, many of our civil liberties and natural rights have been infringed upon; this is the main point of the opposition.Jon Stuart Mills and John Locke support this idea that the only claim that government has in controlling the individual is in regard to others.If the government has already deemed an adult responsible enough to control their own finances, responsible enough to vote, and responsible enough to fight for their country, then certainly they should be deemed responsible enough to provide their own safety. In response to claims that these drugs bring about more crimes, violent crimes that are committed against others, like murder, is false.These crimes are due to the war being waged against drugs, a war which was declared by the U.S. itself, and one must remember no war is without casualties taken on both sides. Now one must decide whether it is more just to protect the freedom of individuals, which is one if America's oldest themes and one of the pillars of the country's founding, or is it more just to have restrictions that the U.S. deems necessary for the safety of the society as a whole. In order to bring about meaningful change, it's first necessary to understand the society in which we live. So, I begin by looking at the social and economic conditions that induce fear, loneliness, violence, and economic insecurity. I then examine the conditioning processes and agents that produce the masses of people who accept such conditions with hardly a whimper. Those that I examine include sexual repression, the patriarchal family, the education system, organized religion, and the mass media. We live in a world which is deeply unsatisfying for most people, a world in which many of our most basic needs - for love, peace, freedom, security, and meaning in life - are not being met. Most of us face constant worry about economic survival, loneliness and isolation, or fear of it, and a constant feeling that there's never enough of anything good to go around, be it love, sex or money. As well, for many - probably most - people, there's a constant fear of violence. And for even more, there's a feeling of powerlessness. The end result is hopelessness, apathy, and often bitterness, meanness, and, all too often, outright sadism. Why do these conditions exist? There's no grand conspiracy, but there are a number of reasons for this lousy situation, and it's important to understand what we're dealing with if we're going to change it. The economic situation is a major reason for our present societal difficulties. At present, most people in this country own almost nothing. The top 1% of the population own more than the bottom 90% of the population combined. The top 1% own 40% of the nation's wealth and the next 9% own another 30%, which means that the top 10% own 70% of the nation's wealth; that leaves another 30% of the wealth for the remaining 90% of us, with most of that distributed toward the top end. So, the bottom 50% of the population own nearly nothing - maybe a car and, if we're lucky, a heavily mortgaged house. It's also worth noting that there has been a distinct trend over the last 20 years or so toward a redistribution of wealth toward the upper end of the scale. In other words, since around the time Reagan was elected president, the rich have been getting richer and the poor have been getting poorer; and this trend is continuing under Clinton. Compounding the economic insecurities most of us face is the problem of physical danger, and the fear of it. Many of the reasons for violence can be traced to economic inequalities, but even more basic is the common belief in violence and coercion as means to an end. This belief is so pervasive that we're often not even aware of it. Perhaps the most important example of this is government. Belief in the necessity of coercion is the foundation of government. Belief in the necessity of coercive organization, that is, government, springs from the belief that people are incapable of voluntary cooperation, and that the only way to get them to behave in a civilized manner is to force them to do so - at the point of a gun if necessary. This leads to things such as extortion and military conscription. Ultimately, it all boils down to the belief that it's OK to push people around if you're powerful enough to do it. What makes things even worse is that most people not only see violence as the solution to violence, but that they think they have the right to use violence and coercion to force other people to be "moral." This belief comes squarely from the "thou shalts" and "thou shalt nots" of patriarchal religions such as christianity and islam, both of which have long and bloody histories of murdering and torturing nonbelievers, nonconformists, and heretics. So, it's no surprise that those who adhere to such religions have no hesitation in using violence to force others to submit, or simply use it for the sheer joy of inflicting pain. A couple of quotes from the bible illustrate the religious submit-or-die attitude: The ironic thing about all this is that many of the religious folk most intent upon using violence and coercion to enforce "morality" are themselves quite fearful of becoming victims of violence. Yet the cruel policies they support produce violence. A good example of this association of violence with "morality" is the war on drugs. It's painfully obvious that drug prohibition is not only destroying our civil liberties, but is also producing a lot of violence and property crime because of the combination of illegality and high profit margins; this results in turf wars by dealers, and crimes committed by drug addicts to support the high price of their habits. All of this should be, and is, obvious, but there is so much fear, authoritarianism and sadism in the general population, and so little ability to analyze data, that the war on drugs continues. And we all pay the price for it through destruction of our liberties, sky-high taxes, and the creation of what could well become a police state. At the dawn of the modern state, patriarchal religion combined with competition-based economics to produce some truly toxic effects. Put briefly, these effects were the degradation and sexual enslavement of women, and the creation of the patriarchal family. The available evidence indicates that relations between the sexes in human societies tended to be relatively egalitarian during prehistoric (hunting and gathering) times. But that all changed about 8,000 years ago when human beings began to practice agriculture (large-scale food production). That made it possible, for the first time in human history, for people to create and to accumulate surplus goods on a relatively large scale. There's fairly convincing evidence that almost as soon as this happened inequalities arose (or at least greatly intensified) between the sexes, and that a ruling elite first appeared. Since one of the functions of a ruling class is to perpetuate itself - and because the early ruling classes consisted of royal families - female sexual exclusivity soon became mandatory. The ruler wanted to know that his children were, in fact, his. A similar thing happened in the lower classes with the advent of private property. Men who accumulated even small amounts of wealth wanted to pass it on to their heirs. So, the patriarchal family was born. What goes 'up', must come 'down', unless it goes around and round.

Jan 23, 2004, 05:53 am	#12 (permalink) (top)
OBKB Sedimentary Rock Posts: 5	Robert Green Ingersoll {1833--1899) said: 1.) "Liberty is the blossom and the fruit of [font=Arial][SIZE=3]justice[/font][/SIZE]" 2.) "Morality is the melody of the perfection of conduct" 3.) "The true moral code is intelligence" I like the quote #1 well enough to have it displayed on the rear glass of my personal automobile. Immortality: Liberty's final frontier

Jan 23, 2004, 09:10 am	#13 (permalink) (top)
mbrock59 Sedimentary Rock Location: Georgia, USA Posts: 12	In the tribal village, justice is understood by all within the small group, and applied. In large nation-states, it is weakened, and various communities are no longer able to interpret their cultural perception of justice, and therefore are no longer able to see that it does in fact occur. True justice in large nations is a goal, not a perfect working model.

Jan 23, 2004, 10:15 am	#14 (permalink) (top)
Ron Sedimentary Rock Location: Home, WA Posts: 9	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (white rice,) What does justice mean to the environment or future generations? Like all other ideals, justice is about personal perception.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> As a newbie, I should warn readers I fall into the "right-wing- fundamental Christian" sort and view things through this lens. That said... I disagree with the idea that justice is about personal perception. If that is true, Saddam was just in his actions, Hitler in his, bin Ladin in his, and so on. No, justice, as stated at the beginning of this thread, is a cardinal virtue. I believe this to mean a universal moral base from which we all ought to agree. Now that is the key word, ought. What we humans do and what we ought to do is very different is it not?? Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect. 1 Peter 3:15 Ron http://www.arkwebshost.com/theology/ron

Jan 23, 2004, 12:23 pm	#15 (permalink) (top)
G. Adams Fyrdman Location: Middlesbrough UK Posts: 4,152	What we ought to do is personal opinion, as is what can be defined as just. In Hitler's eyes, and Saddam's eyes, and every other dictators, what they were doing was just. All the matters is who has the will and ability to enforce their version of justice. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill

Jan 23, 2004, 12:45 pm	#16 (permalink) (top)
Ron Sedimentary Rock Location: Home, WA Posts: 9	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,) What we ought to do is personal opinion, as is what can be defined as just. In Hitler's eyes, and Saddam's eyes, and every other dictators, what they were doing was just. All the matters is who has the will and ability to enforce their version of justice.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> So anyone having enough power is applying justice by any action they choose? This does not make any sense to me. I am not one to subscribe to moral relativism and that is what is being described here- "It is justice if I say it is justice." I believe there are moral absolutes, having remained absolutes throughout human history and not influenced by any cultural bias. I know of no culture where theft is a "good" thing, here and now or any time in history. Theft has always been "bad" behavior.If no set of moral ideas were truer or better than any other, there would be no sense in preferring civilized morality to savage morality. The fact is that we all do believe some moralities are better than others. The moment we say one morality is better than another, we are measuring both by some standard, saying one of them conforms to the standard more closely than the other. Keep in mind, now, that this standard is neither of the two, but rather the measuring rod in which we are applying the two moralities. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect. 1 Peter 3:15 Ron http://www.arkwebshost.com/theology/ron

Jan 23, 2004, 02:13 pm	#17 (permalink) (top)
OBKB Sedimentary Rock Posts: 5	"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." (Luke 19:27) Immortality: Liberty's final frontier

Jan 23, 2004, 02:20 pm	#18 (permalink) (top)
G. Adams Fyrdman Location: Middlesbrough UK Posts: 4,152	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Ron,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,) What we ought to do is personal opinion, as is what can be defined as just. In Hitler's eyes, and Saddam's eyes, and every other dictators, what they were doing was just. All the matters is who has the will and ability to enforce their version of justice.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> So anyone having enough power is applying justice by any action they choose? This does not make any sense to me. I am not one to subscribe to moral relativism and that is what is being described here- "It is justice if I say it is justice." I believe there are moral absolutes, having remained absolutes throughout human history and not influenced by any cultural bias. I know of no culture where theft is a "good" thing, here and now or any time in history. Theft has always been "bad" behavior.If no set of moral ideas were truer or better than any other, there would be no sense in preferring civilized morality to savage morality. The fact is that we all do believe some moralities are better than others. The moment we say one morality is better than another, we are measuring both by some standard, saying one of them conforms to the standard more closely than the other. Keep in mind, now, that this standard is neither of the two, but rather the measuring rod in which we are applying the two moralities.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> It is not justice if I say it is, it is justice if I make it justice. There is no such thing as right or wrong, good or bad, even if everyone in the world could agree to what is right/wrong. IF God exists, and has set a universal code for what is right/wrong, then yes there clearly is universal values. But, because God has put them there, it is only right/wrong because God has the ability to enforce it. Despite how it sounds, I personally do have codes and values for myself to live by, and if someone goes against what I feel is right or wrong I will fight it because a) I'd feel guilty to not to b) Because I can But this is just my conscience, combined with my will to enforce what I feel is right. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill

Jan 23, 2004, 04:40 pm	#19 (permalink) (top)
darwinist Igneous Magma Location: Netherlands Posts: 200	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by I believe there are moral absolutes, having remained absolutes throughout human history and not influenced by any cultural bias. I know of no culture where theft is a "good" thing, here and now or any time in history. Theft has always been "bad" behavior.If no set of moral ideas were truer or better than any other, there would be no sense in preferring civilized morality to savage morality. The fact is that we all do believe some moralities are better than others. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Yes Ron, here you have the basis of the whole thread of justice. But i agree with what some of Adams has to say. Religoen has in history been used as a weapon to enforce someone's vision of justice. Just like Hitler or Saddam. Or the US or UK government today. You have to stand upon the Moral high ground, then do not move from there. The USA went to war, over weapons of mass destruction. Which i don't think anyone believes. Read my thread about the Iraq War or Adams thread about Euro and Oil. It mentions there. That the USA are commiting some of the very things, that they set out to stop. If they went to war for a lie, that is even worse. But this all boils down to duplicity of morality. They teach all school children. That it is bad to bully. But what does the USA do, for an example. It bullies poorer nations into agree with the WTO. The basis of justice. Has to be simple. The law has to enforce justice. Not anything else. As it does now. Like you mention, theft is a bad thing. In every society. You will not find any place, where they say. It is ok to steal. The same applies i believe to murder. To put it simple, you are not allow to do anything to harm another person. Physically or financially. The biggest problem that i see in the current system. Is the duel values. If i want to commit a crime. There is the police to stop me. But i happen to know, that companies and governments are breaking the laws left, right and centre. What do i have to do? I can't call the police. I have to sue. Write loads of letters and have loads of cash. This is not just. What goes 'up', must come 'down', unless it goes around and round.

Jan 23, 2004, 05:25 pm	#20 (permalink) (top)
Anarchist Patriot Molten Ash Posts: 143	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (hello_caleb,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) justice is a lie... justice is whatever the strongest claim is justice and nothing more...<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> so i can kill your mom and get away with it?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Of course you can. Just ask President Bush.