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.