Justice Revisted

Liberty is defended by justice. Yet, one entails freedom, and the other restraint. What are the freedoms of man, and what must be done to protect them? Can the liberty of man be reconciled with his efforts to defend it?

Liberty, or the freedoms of man that must remain inviolate, should start with the freedom to live, for without his life a man is without his freedom. Nor should he be deprived the power to think, for only by his actions should a man be judged. He should not be deprived of speech, with few restrictions, for if he should pose any question (if we should think of knowledge as a series of questions and answers), the answer should be found, and if he should render an answer, then, if it is true, it should become a part of the body of knowledge. May we hold an axiom that true ideas (those that are) should be held over false ideas (those that are not). Then false knowledge, and the speech that embodies it, should be discarded; to propagate such knowledge will violate another individual’s rights—here we have arrived at another faucet of liberty, man’s right to know the truth, for he must know truth in order to hold true ideas. In the same fashion to speech, the freedom to put knowledge, believed to be true, into any other medium, including the press, should remain inviolate. Speech, the press, and any medium are united in that they are all forms of expression, and thus the freedoms of speech and press are subsidiary freedoms to the freedom of expression (but this freedom of expression has no distinction from its composing freedoms other than its universal nature). Man also has a right to his health and material necessities as they may be supplied to him, for these supply his life, the first freedom inviolate.

But then there is happiness, or a feeling of contentment that one inevitable derives from life, and inevitablely drives most to live. Among friends, in solitude; with power, in anonymity; in pleasure, in pain—even one who is not “happy” in its modern sense can be content in despair. It is for this contentment that most men and women will compete for in their lives. Now with the blessings of Jefferson, they engage in “the pursuit of happiness.” We might hope that if all of the freedoms of all individuals were met, then happiness might ensure, but even those privileged enough to possess every inviolate freedom still hunger for more. Whether it is a failing of a person, I cannot say. Whether it is an impulse of man, I do not know. I do know, however, that in the present era, contentment is an invincible force. In this modern age, and throughout the known history of man, it leads humans to suppress and injure for their own selfish purposes.

Does man have a freedom to act? We have established that he has the right to self existence, and to service that existence, and to act in as far as to think and communicate. But what of those many actions outside the realm of living and communicating? What is every man and woman free to do?

Humans should always have power over their destiny; otherwise, the life one lives is not their own life to live. Thus, they should be free to act as they please as long as their actions do not impede upon the essential rights and the freedom of action in another person. Most will choose to pursue happiness. Many actions will impede upon another persons liberty in a minor way, but major transgressions would inevitably occur. Ironically, with increased freedom comes the increased empowerment to destroy and injure. Justice is due.

But what is justice? Justice protects liberty, but how? If every man were to impose upon himself the need to prevent the infringement of another’s liberties, then no one could ever be denied liberty by the hand of his fellow man—but there is no self-imposition. The prevailing nature of the modern and ancient man is to quench his thirst for contentment by indulgence, usually at the expense of another man’s liberty. A responsible anarchy, where men treat other men according to their liberties, where they do so under no compulsive force other than themselves, is presently impossible. How, then, can justice protect liberty?

The only form of effective justice that this world has come to know has come from the impositions of justice from man onto man—whether it be through the State, vigilantes, or vendettas. In the act of setting standards of conduct, we must take a singular opinion, whether it be of the few or the many, and impose it on the whole. It is not self-imposed. In any application of justice, the freedoms to act are restrained, even if righteously done so, but unavoidably the freedom of man to choose his own destiny must be infringed upon. Then, in the imposition of punishments for transgressions of standards, the freedom to act is, especially in incarceration, severely limited. In order to protect liberty, liberty must be curtailed. Paradoxical it is, but it is not without a solution. Liberty of those who transgress must be, as fairly and justly as possible, curtailed in order to give greater justice to those whom may be repressed by the transgressor. In a perfect world, there would be no need for justice, but until then, the ends justify the means, as long as the maximum justice is rendered.

November 18 POW

To The Teach, I have been negligent in responding to your comments. I apologize. To make amends, I will be reviewing and responding to everything over the break. Please keep reading. Thank you for your help.

* * *

My gut tells me that this piece below was not my best work, but I, regardless, welcome criticism. The link to the column analyzed (or rambled over, for that matter) is:

http://tinyurl.com/6ndfcm

The works consulted, which details additional sources cited and consulted in my research, can be found at:

http://cid-a0ad97da83d903fb.skydrive.live.com/self.aspx/The%20Monastery%20Archives/November%2018%20Works%20Consulted.doc

* * *

A compelling argument is essential to the most effective discourse. That is, persuasive discourse, regardless of whether the conclusion is ultimately right or wrong, should employ premises that are essentially and predominantly correct. Such an argument will reveal essential truths, which in turn will question opposing ideas or overturn them entirely. Without a compelling argument, the author or speaker must rely on the irrational or unsubstantiated—the unfortunate habit of Charles Krauthammer. To all but the unperceptive, discourse lacking a compelling argument will appear unreasonable or, at best, dubious.

Yet, it would be untrue to say that the whole of Krauthammer’s piece is built on weak premises. At first, he presents truths that are either logically sound or sedate enough so as to not be held in jeopardy. He notes the reluctance, among his own conservatives as well as the other major contenders, to question federal bailouts. He concedes that the government must save the financial sector for the sake of the economy. He also concedes the logic behind the Democratic auto industry bailout, in that it aims to avoid “the death spiral of the 1930s.” He substantiates where necessary: the financial sector is to the economy what the electric companies are to homes, and that the failure of the automotive industry could cause a spiraling pattern of unemployment and falling consumer spending.

Even though he conceded the valid reasoning behind the Democratic plan, he is not swayed by it. He argues that the bailout of one industry not in the financial sector might lead to a slippery slope and when, as he assumes, many other struggling industries come to Congress, inevitably they will dole out to these industries as well. Then, when Congress distributes aid to these many industries, it certainly be distributed it according to the amount of “clot” an industry has in Congress. Furthermore, the American auto industry, in its operations and labor agreements, is quite inefficient and uncompetitive. A better solution than aid, according to Krauthammer, would be to release and reorganize the industry through bankruptcy proceedings.

Attacks such as these operate under assumptions and other premises that may not be as sound. For example, it does not take a leap of faith to think that other industries, after an automotive bailout, might seek aid of their own. Krauthammer assumes is that Congress will, without a doubt, cave to additional requests for aid. Yet, the initial rejection of the $700 billion bank bailout plan by Congress showed that the nation’s elected representatives are, at least to some degree, responsive to the will of the People. If the People do not approve of spending more money—from the allocated bailout funds or additional appropriations—to bail out other industries, including the auto industry, their voice may impact the vote on the floor. To expect a cascade of bailouts resulting from a bailout of the auto industry might be overestimating the influence of special interests.

The weakest attempt is certainly the most aggressive. Krauthammer calls the bailout “lemon socialism.” Krauthammer states: “The point of the Democratic bailout is to protect the unions by preventing this kind of [bankruptcy] restructuring.” In other words, Krauthammer is alleging a Democratic conspiracy to benefit the unions (which in turn is somehow a socialist act). That could be the case, or, perhaps, Democrats just want to rescue the economy. If an author makes an accusation, he ought to have it grounds for his statement, else it would be libel. Now, the rules between truth and libel are not hard and fast concerning public figures—as it should be, since statesmen often work hard to cover up their transgressions. However, to allege a conspiracy, or even favoritism, without substantiation is not compelling just because it is in some way plausible.

Krauthammer is just getting warmed up with the unions. He alleges that the Democrats are attempting to “nationalize” the industry and force it to conform to their environment machinations. Yes, some speculation has been abounding that Barrack Obama is considering a commission or “Tsar” to help, along with aid, to reorganize and rebuild the industry. David Brooks, in his own column, simply doubted whether such a man with the business and political prowess to do the job exists—but that would be too sedate for Krauthammer. David Brooks does make a compelling argument against such a Tsar—indeed, a compelling argument against the bailout in general—whereas Krauthammer supposes that “bureaucrats” would issue “production quotas” for “five year plans” in a clear attempt to link the Democrat’s proposals to Communism. Some fringes venture to call Obama a socialist—communism might be too extreme to believe. Some individuals have suggested a Tsar should implement adoption of “green” product lines, though Krauthammer argues that consumers are “resisting” these cars—even though automobile sales data for the month of October, during which gas prices and auto sales plummeted, indicates that among all of the categories of cars sold, small cars were the only type whose sales actually grew.

Krauthammer has established that the failure of the auto industry (i.e., bankruptcy) could lead to the “the death spiral of the 1930s.” Bankruptcy, however, is the best option because of a slippery slope, fundamental inefficiency, and the Democratic conspiracy—so Krauthammer would have us believe. Even if everything Krauthammer says is true, are too many bailouts, too many losses, and too many hybrids really more frightening, more devastating than the Great Depression, or anything half as bad? If one should take the capitalist approach in an economic meltdown, he should be prepared to argue that bailouts threaten something greater, such as the fundamental tenets of America. Several conservative authors, Brooks included, argue that interfering in the destructive-constructive cycle of capitalism threatens the “dynamic” nature of the American economy. As for Krauthammer? “In this crisis, we agree to suspend the invisible hand of Adam Smith—but not in order to be crushed by the heavy hand of government.” Yet, is this heavy hand of government really that oppressive, so as to be worse than the hardships of down times? Not as Krauthammer argues it.

Especially in politics, trying to change someone’s opinion can be extremely difficult. Two good debaters will illustrate that on many issues, the logical truth lies buried beneath conflicting facts of equal merits—thus, the opinions that many people take may be because of a fundamental ingraining of one ideology or idea. However, if individuals are not strongly held in their opinion, if they are not prepared to defend their view, then they could be swayed by a compelling argument. At the very least, a compelling argument that goes against the views of a reader can at least help them to strengthen his own view by understanding it in the greatest depth possible. Sedate reasoning and rational emotion work towards enlightenment of the audience. Flawed reasoning, frivolous accusations, half-truths, and downright lies will either manipulate a weak audience or leave the piece open to be the next victim of a lucid critic.

The Yearbook Clubs Says...

"We reserve the right to edit your memories. "