Justice vs. Fairness

Our society tends to equate the notion of fairness with that of justice; treating them as though they are interchangeable concepts.  While this may be true if their definitions are carefully and clearly asserted, in practice, they most often do not mean the same thing.  In fact, they usually express opposing ideas.  One is objective, the other subjective.  One deals with universal principles that apply equally to all societies and which do not change with time; the other deals with popular sentiment and is subject to change between societies and times.  One is subject to reasoned correction; the other is subject to emotional manipulation.  One is a foundational principle of liberty; the other is an enemy of liberty.

Justice is the impartial application of the law as derived from the principles of Natural Law. It is rooted in universal principles that apply to all people, everywhere and at all times.  These principles do not change with societies or time.  They are founded upon the first principle that the individual owns his own will. Justice recognizes the equal claim every individual has in this first principle and in the rest of their Natural Rights.  It protects the individual from encroachment upon these individual rights so that the individual can be secure enough to exercise liberty.  Should someone encroach on the rights of another, justice provides a means of restraining that encroachment and making restitution when necessary.  And, should a law be made that violates the principles of Natural Law, justice provides a path of reasoned correction to put the law back in harmony with those principles.

On the other hand, fairness is a biased assertion of individual opinion.  It is rooted in assumptions that change with societies and over time.  These assumptions are not fixed; they change frequently, even within a given society.  They are founded primarily on the notion of what ought to be as opposed to what is.  Fairness subjugates the rights of the individual to the enforcement of these notions of how things should be.  Fairness provides no protections to the individual, nor does it provide for a reasoned path of correction.  In fact, fairness admits to the ‘right’ to make law as necessary to further the purpose of whatever it is believed should be as opposed to what is.

EXAMPLE: justice upholds Natural Law whereas fairness most often undermines it.  The battle between a free market and Marxism is the perfect example.  The free market (not ‘Capitalism’) is the Natural Order of economic exchange among free men.  Marxism is the subversion of this Natural Order in order to establish the Marxist ideal of how men should conduct their business.  The free market is based on the objective principle of merit and free exchange between individuals.  In such a system, justice seeks to insure a level playing field where every individual can compete without having their Natural Rights encroached upon by others.  Laws are written to insure this ideal and, when a law is violated, it is enforced equally and consistently, regardless to the socioeconomic status of the violator.  Marxism is based on the subjective notion that fairness requires all people to be equal in material terms, in which case, justice is perverted to the enforcement of whatever is thought necessary to enforce material equality.  Such a system will naturally favor those thought to be victims, while being directed more harshly at those thought to be exploiting the victims.  The proof that the free market is the Natural Order came during the Communist Revolution in Russia, where the Communists were forced to return to free market principles to keep the nation from starving.  Justice seeks to protect the individual; fairness seeks to enforce an idea.  As such, they are not equal, they are opposites.

ADDENDUM

This post is among the most read on the Road to Concord — and most disputed.  Consequently, I have added the following to expand upon the distinction I tried to make in the original post.

When I speak of justice, I am referring to the manner by which the legal system of a given society is applied.  We often hear referred to as “The Rule of Law.” ‘Justice’ is the impartial and consistent understanding and application of a society’s laws.  It applies both to the way the laws are understood and applied.  In a just society, the laws must first conform to Natural Law.  Then, they must be consistently and impartially understood and applied.  In other words, the same understanding of a law, and consequences for breaking it, must be applied to everyone who is accused of violating a given law regardless of the accused person’s socioeconomic status int hat society.  If a government leader is accused of theft, they must be tried and — if convicted — sentenced in the exact same way as a beggar would be were they accused of an equal crime.

‘Fairness’ is more a measure of what one believes is just regardless of what the laws say.  In the above example, some might think that it is unfair to treat a government official in the same manner as a poor beggar.  In some cases, a person might seek to excuse the government official because of their perceived importance to society, while seeking to be harsh with the beggar for the same reason.  But another person might believe it is ‘fair’ to excuse the beggar because or some perceived harm the government official has done to the poor man, and thus, seek to be harsh on the government official.  We often see this dichotomy when we speak about ‘social justice.’

In fact, ‘social justice’ is a perfect example of how justice and fairness often work in opposition to each other.  If we seek justice, then we do not think in terms of ‘fairness.’  We simply look to the law, evaluate it to determine whether or not it has been violated and, if it has, apply the prescribed punishment to whomever is determined to have broken the law.  Who you are and how much material wealth you have is never a factor in this consideration — not in a just society, anyway.  In this way, ‘justice’ is not only blind, but it is impartial.  It is merely a process, and that makes it objective (by definition).

But ‘social justice’ is based upon an unjust assumption.  It is based on the assumption that ‘justice’ is based on the amount of material wealth each member of society possesses.  Consequently, laws are either written or ‘interpreted’ so that they favor those who are assumed to be ‘victims’ at the expense of those ‘assumed’ to be exploiting the presumed ‘victims.’  But notice, there is a presumption of guilt and innocence based not on the law, but on material possessions.  This is the negation of ‘justice,’ because it is not only based on a false assumption, but it punishes those who have done nothing wrong while often rewarding those who have.  This is an arbitrary process and that is why it is a subjective system (by definition).  It is why all systems based on ‘fairness’ — as it is most commonly asserted today — are subjective.  They are just the imposition of one person;s will upon another.

I’ll close with another illustration designed to make my point by shocking the reader’s sensibilities by intentionally incorporating an emotionally charged issue.  Many people argue that it is only ‘fair’ to provide every member of society with free healthcare.  Healthcare is not a material thing, but a service.  Service implies the labor of another person.  This is directly connected to Natural law through the notion of free will.  But this is slavery: the forcing of one person to work for the benefit of another.  In order to provide ‘free’ healthcare to all, money has to be taken from one person to pay for another, or healthcare personnel must be forced to work for free.  Either way, the government is forcing someone to work for the benefit of another.  These are not ‘opinions:’ they are definitions (and Constitutional definitions, at that).  But the people who think free healthcare is only ‘fair’ will not see it this way.  So, let me ask the question in another way: “When did slavery become ‘fair?'”  And if it is ‘fair,’ then why is it acceptable to wage war on white people in this country today for something that is now considered to be ‘fair?’  Is it because it is ‘fair’ to attack whites but not blacks?  If that’s true, then how are blacks (and those who join with them) not the racists today?  And to those who would argue that it is ‘fair’ for whites today to pay for the supposed ‘sins’ of the past, how?  If it is ‘fair’ to force people to pay for your healthcare, why was it not ‘fair’ to force blacks to work for whites and blacks in the past (yes, blacks owned black slaves in this nation — even in the South)?

Do you see the mess that is made when we think in terms of ‘fairness?’  There is no standard by which to measure anything other than a person’s ‘feelings,’ therefore, what is ‘fair’ in one case may be deemed ‘unfair’ in another when they are — in fact — the exact same thing, only in different forms.  Slavery in the past is no different from forcing people to work for the welfare of others today.  it is still the forcing of another persons labor and will, and that is a violation of Natural law.  This is why ‘fairness’ is not ‘justice:’ because — as we think of it today — fairness is lawlessness, and lawlessness is the negation of justice.

 

Advertisements

39 responses to “Justice vs. Fairness

  1. Fairness. definetley fairness is better!

    • Do you really believe that? OK, then I say it is ‘fair’ for you to be my slave. Guess what? You have no moral grounds upon which to object — either to my version of what is fair, or my claim to your life.

      This is why fairness has no part in justice, and why justice has nothing to do with fairness.

      • “OK, then I say it is ‘fair’ for you to be my slave. Guess what? You have no moral grounds upon which to object.”

        I don’t need moral grounds to object. I need only say it is then fair for you to be my slave. I have therefore nulled your argument.

        • This is why I reject the idea that ‘fair’ is the same thing as ‘just:’ because their are people who actually believe such absurdities. In fact, it is why our founders rejected democracy — because their is nothing ‘just’ in the tyranny of the majority. For example: today, many consider it ‘fair’ to punish white people because of our history with slavery. But there is no justice in this. First, no one alive to day in this country was a slave, nor are there any slave owners. But more than that, this idea of ‘fair’ based on past injustices ignores the FACT that many whites — both then and now — oppose slavery and racism. Still, the idea of ‘fairness’ has been attached to injustices such as affirmative action. This is a perfect example of why ‘fair’ has nothing to do with ‘just.’

        • You DO need an objective ground to object. Otherwise, you can object, but you will be doing nothing more than playing the part of a petulant child or entering into a state of war with those around you. You certainly will NOT have made your case. It’s called an unsupported assertion and it is a gross violation of Natural Law.

  2. Jean H. Broeckx - Castlegar, BC Canada

    What is justice is defined by “The Rule Of Law”, a law decreed by the most powerful people in the world, a minority of privileged warlords, and churchmen, whose justice allowed them (as a team) to displace, dominate, pillage, murder, and enslave, entire races of human beings, the rule of law supported those crimes against humanity, and to this day has turned a blind eye to all attempts made to charge and correct the true perpetrators of the crimes, which is the blood descendants of very people who decreed and imposed the rule of law on all humanity below their self declared station. The rule of Law is a weapon created by the powerful for the purpose tying all people of lower station in a position of servitude to the upper class will, it was born of ill will, with a eye toward inflicting social injustice on the weak, it does that, to this day. It is obscene, even to equate it with the notion of providing justice. We need a whole new set of laws, unbiased laws, which protect the powerless from the powerful.

    • Your Progressive revisionism and post modern decontructivism do not work here. Here, the rule of logic and reason rule the day. This is how and why we know that what you describe is the perversion of the law, not the rule of law. Your attempts to equate the two will not stand up to scrutiny. So, please, do not come here with these perverted interpretations that exist only in the minds of those who twist reality. They are too easily defeated — and this entire blog bares testimony to this FACT!

  3. I have a debate on this exact subject. HELP!!

  4. Great article! Gets to very core of so many issues. It amazes me that there is such a large proportion of American citizenry that are so ignorant of even this most fundamental notion. But it IS this notion that forms the bedrock on which the nation once rested – before being systematically dismantled by the nation’s self-appointed reformers and transformers. They’re transforming it alright…. but nobody in their right mind will want to dwell in their society of drones and oligarchs

  5. I think your premise is ridiculous. Justice diesnt change over time or society? According to who? You? Back in the Romans days thrives got crucified. That was considered justice, now they are temporarily put in jail or prison and then released. When they get sentenced to prison many says justice was done. Justice is rooted in fairness. Both ideas of fairness and justice are subjective and change with time and societies.

    • You think it is ridiculous because you do not understand the issue. I say this because your words demonstrate it. In your own examples, the Romans and modern times, you show that — in both times — there was a sense of “justice” (Punishment for wrong doing). But then you demonstrate that you think this is connected to “fairness.” The problem and source of your confusion is that one is objective and the other subjective.

      Justice is objective in that every society has a notion of right/wrong. I do not care what form that notion takes: that is not the point. The point is that all societies have this notion; therefore, the thing we call “justice” exists.

      You, however, then equate “justice” with “fairness.” OK, let’s look at your example of the Roman’s crucifying thieves. Are you aware that crucifixion was ONLY for the lowest members of society? And that Roman law did not allow for crucifixion of Roman citizens? So we already have two different rules here: one for the poorest members of society, and another for Roman citizens. Now, I ask you, how is that “fair?” You see, “fair” lies in the eyes of the beholder. A modern example would be the belief that it is “fair” to tax “the rich” at higher rates than t”the poor.” While people may call that “fair,” it is not “just” because it treats people differently based on subjective criteria.

      This is the heart of the issue, and the distinction you do not seem to understand (or wish to understand, I don’t know which).

  6. Austin Drew Gomez

    Btw its the same thing. Just has same meanings but the word has more explanation than the other (Justice-Fairness)

    • No, the two do NOT have the same meaning. One has an objective standard by which it can be judged while the other is entirely subjective and has meaning only to the individual. Thus, Justice has an external definition, but fairness can only be defined internally. NOT the same thing — not at all. In fact, they can and often negate each other.

  7. Pingback: Writing Prompt #12: Due Date: 22 February 2017 | Mr. Patrick J. Butler's English 12 Hons: Humanities Course

  8. Sorry but I thnk youv got it totally backwards in an effort to us these words to support your own political/economic views. The two words are very similar and usually work hand in hand together. Justice means you get what you deserve. Not neccesarilly objective. In some countries a persons hand is cut off for stealing a loaf of bread. People of that society would consider that they got what they deserved (justice was done). In other societies the offender might have to pay back the value of the loaf with money or labor. Totally different punishment but people of that society would consider that they got what they deserved (justice was done.)

    Fairness by definition is th opposite of personal bias! In your third paragraph you seem to say that fairness equals bias. Thats totally wrong! Referring to the example of the Roman theft and crucifiction:
    If the Roman society believed that a poor thief deserved crucifiction then Justice was done when he recieved that punishment. If the Roman society believed that a rich thief deserved some other punishent and that punishment was imposed then that person got what they deserved and justices was done. This however is totally unfair because it is biased. Two different standards for two different people for the same crime biased by a factor that had nothing to do with the crime itself.

    Unfairness is generally detremental to one party and beneficial to the other. Clearly the unfairness of the situatin in the Roman example was very convenient and beneficial for the one who was a monied citizen and detremental for the person who was poor. I dont think you would like it very much if you were the one suffering detriment due to being treated unfairly. I bet you would learn to value fairness real fast after experiencing that.

    • See, your comment is the perfect example of what I am trying to explain. You have the ideas backward, and for the very reason you think I have them backward.

      Justice deals with the fair and impartial application of the law. If the law says poor thieves get crucified but rich thieves are treated differently (which is not exactly how that worked, by the way), then so long as the law is always applied the same way, that is justice. The problem, however, is that the law can and often is in contradiction to Natural Law. This is where people start to talk in terms of ‘fairness,’ but they can be just as wrong as the law.

      A good example here is the notion of ‘social justice.’ Because some people think it is not ‘fair’ for some people to be wealthy and others to be poor, they use the law to try and make things balance out closer to the way they think things should be. To them, it is about fairness, not the law. The problem, however, is that this desire for ‘fairness’ often leads to the law being applied unequally. Where the same law may be applied with full force to a ‘rich’ man, the ‘poor’ man may be excused all together for violating the same law in the same way.

      You see, “fairness” is all in the eye of the beholder. This is why it is subjective. What you see as unfair in Roman law was seen by Roman citizens at perfectly fair. You are choosing to look at things through the eye of the poor thief, not the rich one.

      On the other hand, justice is about the equal and consistent application of the law to all people, no matter their status. This is objective because it provides a measure against which every sentence can be measured. One simply needs to look to how the law was applied in the past and then follow that precedent irregardless to whom it is being applied.

      Now, if you object to there being two sets of laws — one for the rich and one for the poor — then that is a different issue, but still isn’t about fairness. It is still about justice. This is because, under Natural Law, there can only be one set of laws, and they must be applied equally to all. Therefore, what you actually have is an unjust society or legal system. That is not ‘fairness,’ because there will be people who disagree as to whether or not it is ‘fair.’ It is about justice, because there is an objective standard by which to measure that unjust system — NATURAL LAW!

  9. Hello, I participate in a National Speech and debate club and the topic for debate this year is this: Rehabilitation ought to be valued above retribution in criminal justice systems. You debate both sides of the issue so I have to show why rehabilitation should be valued higher and I have to show why retribution should be valued higher depending on which side is chosen.

    The topic of discussion on the affirmative side (for rehabilitation) is that justice is subjective, there is no way to measure justice and that in regards to proportional punishment, that cannot be measured either.

    This leads me to the question, How do you effectively argue on the negative side (for retribution) that justice is not subjective and that it is the only standard to which we should uphold punishment and the criminal justice system? The affirmative side usually argues that we cannot measure justice, therefore it is subjective.

    For further clarification, most debates on affirmative value Social Wellbeing, Quality of Life, and reduced recidivism while the negative side usually values justice. (also we are debating in Lincoln-Douglas style)

    Thank you for your help

    • Let me see if I can help you.

      First, the side favoring rehabilitation is trying to frame the conversation to favor their position. Justice has a definition, and they do not get to re-define it. Make sure you force them to define their concept of justice and, if they are wrong correct them. Then hold the line: defend the actual definition of justice and force them to remain consistent with theirs.

      Second: justice — as I have tried to explain it — cannot be subjective. if it is, then it is not justice. Therefore, justice must be the impartial and consistent application of the laws. Now, if they have a problem with the laws, THAT is a totally different subject. Do not let them confuse or equate the two.

      Once we accept that the concept of justice must be an impartial and consistent application of the laws, it follows that justice is impartial (i.e. objective). This is because the law is the standard against which we measure our treatment of offenders — not the sentence. Once it is established that a given law has been broken, the sentence should be axiomatic.

      The notion of ‘fairness,’ on the other hand, IS subjective. I believe that my definition of justice is fair, but the person who thinks we should rehabilitate people would most likely disagree. They would take everything on a case-by-case basis, which it the negation of justice. If we do so, why even have laws? Such a practice destroys the notion of law and replaces it with the whim of whomever happens to be handling a given case. This is defined as the rule of men, and it is the negation of justice.

      Finally, be sure to press the side advocating rehabilitation. Not only is society formed to protect the law-abiding from those who do not recognize or conform to it, but many studies have shown that rehabilitation does not work. I know, I had to study them when I was earning my sociology degree. Sexual offenders are a prime example. They simply do not ‘rehabilitate.’ Nor do ‘habitual criminals.’ Lawlessness is all they know, and it is all they will ever know. In such cases, society owes these people nothing. In fact, society doesn’t even owe them a life. This is why many prison systems left a person’s family to provide for them. No family, you died.

      Which brings us to one more thing you need to consider. Many of those who will be on the side of rehabilitation are not actually seeking justice at all. They are acting on a misguided notion of mercy. Do not get me wrong: mercy is a valuable part of justice, but it should be left to the jury, not the judge. What’s more, we need to understand when and where mercy is appropriate and how it should be applied. It is not ‘merciful’ to keep letting people get away with offenses against society. This is how society trains such people to become ‘habitual criminals.’ But it IS merciful to allow a person to pay back whatever harm or damage they caused TO THE PARTY THEY HARMED (not the govt), plus an additional fee (traditionally 20%). This keeps a person out of jail, but also shows them they must make good on the harm they did. THAT is mercy properly applied. But to just slap a person on the wrist and let them go… No, that is not mercy, nor ‘fair’ — as the law breaker does not learn and the victim is not compensated.

      Hope this helps.

  10. it is unfortunate that the article does not refer to any (credible) authority. It is also a one-sided treatment of the complex relationship between justice and fairness.

    • An appeal to authority over an actual argument is a fallacy — as is your “opinion’ of what is one-sided. See, you would think I have been “unfair,” which actually helps to demonstrate my point. You felt comfortable stating your objection, but didn’t provide anything to support it other than your “feelings.” This is EXACTLY why fairness can and will never be objective: because it is always in the eye of the one issuing the opinion.

  11. Fairness
    1. the state, condition, or quality of being fair, or free from bias or injustice; evenhandedness:

    Your argument if one of definitions.

    • The problem you have here is fallacy.

      1 — you cannot define something by using it in its own definition — which is EXACTLY what this definition does. On this basis alone, a REASONABLE person would dismiss this definition.

      2 — This definition does not define injustice. This opens the door to the fallacy of equivocation — which is EXACTLY what many people do today: they treat the word ‘fair’ as though it means ‘justice’ when the way they use the term ‘just’ has nothing to do with ‘justice’ at all. One is based entirely on personal feelings, the other on the even handed application of a rule or law without consideration to the person or persons to which it is applied.

      You have committed both fallacies. That you do not see this says much about why our society is in such disarray.

      • Yawn.

        You haven’t presented a rebuttal at all. You just threw words on the screen.

        “1 — you cannot define something by using it in its own definition”

        This didn’t happen, fairness isn’t the same as fair. Fair is an adjective, and fairness is a noun. Any English teacher could tell you the difference.

        ” On this basis alone, a REASONABLE person would dismiss this definition.” Only someone who doesn’t understand grammar.

        “2 — This definition does not define injustice”

        No why would it?!?!?! It defines fairness. Why would the definition of fairness contain the definition of injustice? They are two different words. If you want the definition of injustice you would look that up because it’s a different word. Your rebuttal is like complaining the bathroom doesn’t have a kitchen sink in it.

        Answer this question. Yes or no. Does it make logical sense to complain that the definition of the word fairness doesn’t define a completely different word? Again, just yes or no.

        • I haven’t had to provide a rebuttal — because you have not formed an actual argument (objection). You have made unsupported assertions — a fallacy. This makes me wonder whether or not you have had any education as to the formal use of logic?

          For example: you started by accusing me of making an argument based on definitions. Well, YEAH! That is one of the simplest and strongest logical arguments that can be made. One cannot RATIONALLY argue with a definition. You can object to the definition, itself, but if something meets the requirements of that definition, to argue that point is to admit to being irrational.

          Now, as to saying you cannot use ‘fair’ in the definition of ‘fairness:’ it IS a circular definition — because you did not first define ‘fair.’ It’s like saying ‘cuteness’ is the state of being ‘cute.’ Well, what is cute? And how does one OBJECTIVELY define cute? This is the whole thrust of this argument. One can no more define ‘fair’ in these terms than one can define ‘cute.’ However, were one to do so, then ‘justice’ would be the objective and consistent application of that definition to anything claimed to be ‘cute.’

          As for your last question, it is another fallacy, in that it is not a ‘yes or no’ answer, yet you demand it be answered that way.

          This blog is dedicated to NATURAL LAW! If you insist on trying to argue outside those parameters, not only will you be WRONG, but you will be rejected (because you are wrong). Now, PLEASE, learn some basic logic and come back when you can make an actual argument objecting to my post. You must present an objection to my argument that is sound, valid and rational. Otherwise, you will simply be dismissed as someone who wants what they want without any reason or justification. This shows a person is not willing to learn, which is a form of lawlessness and that is yet another violation of Natural law. It simply isn’t welcomed here.

          • “As for your last question, it is another fallacy, in that it is not a ‘yes or no’ answer, yet you demand it be answered that way.”

            To quote you, “You have made unsupported assertions — a fallacy.”

            So it is alright for you to claim others make unsupported assertions can make a response that contains them. Hilarious.

            “Answer this question. Yes or no. Does it make logical sense to complain that the definition of the word fairness doesn’t define a completely different word? Again, just yes or no.”

            You can answer it yes or no. You have the ability to type yes or no. Nothing prevents you from doing this. Saying yes or no would be an answer and you can answer it that way with one word.

          • The fact that you do not realize I have NOT made unsupported assertions, but have offered a sound, valid and rational argument in this original post demonstrates that you do not know or understand basic logic. If you do not understand basic logic, how can you ever hope to understand Natural law? Let alone offer a RATIONAL objection to my original argument?

            Your insistence on me answering a question ‘yes or no’ only cements the fact that you do not understand logic — because you do not see that your question is irrational. And because it is irrational, it does not demand nor deserve an answer.

            Now, make a RATIONAL argument, or your line of discussion will be shut down as — at this point — it has become nothing more than trolling my blog and — as such — will not be allowed to continue.

  12. fair
    adjective
    1. treating people equally without favouritism or discrimination.

    Within the definition of fair, we see no circular use of the word fair to define itself.

    justice
    noun
    noun: justice; plural noun: justices
    1. just behaviour or treatment.
    Within the definition of justice, we see no circular use of the word fair to define itself. However, since just needs to be defined;
    just
    adjective
    adjective: just; superlative adjective: justest
    1. based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair.

    Therefore justice needs to be just for it to exist. Just require being both morally right and fair. It says ‘and fair’, not or fair.

    For justice in a judicial system, it requires ‘treating people equally without favouritism or discrimination’ as defined by fair.

    If you want justice, you need fair treatment.
    As I defined above,
    ‘Fairness
    1. the state, condition, or quality of being fair, or free from bias or injustice; evenhandedness.’
    “Our society tends to equate the notion of fairness with that of justice; treating them as though they are interchangeable concepts”
    Both justice and fairness can be substituted in the following sentence, and its meaning will not change. If the sentences meaning is not changed, then the words are interchangeable concepts conveying a similar enough meaning to be, again, interchangeable.

    The judge’s decision was meted with justice/fairness.

    Oh,

    “This makes me wonder whether or not you have had any education as to the formal use of logic?”

    Cloaked ad hominem attack. Hilarious for one so concerned about fallacies.

    • “This makes me wonder whether or not you have had any education as to the formal use of logic?”

      I have a degree in philosophy — so YES! And I scored in the top 2% of the nation on the logic section of the GRE. So I understand the subject much better than you do. I will now explain for the benefit of anyone else who is following along — then your posts will no longer be approved.

      Brent is engaging in fallacious arguments. When he posts the definition of ‘justice’ and claims that I have done the same thing he has with the definition of ‘fair,’ he does not acknowledge that — in my original post — I start with the definition of ‘justice’ and then expound on it — defining just and justice in the process. And in the original post, I didn’t even cite the dictionary definition: I constructed it on my own, offering rational reason to support my definition. It was Brent who injected the citation of definitions, and he did so for the purpose of confusing the discussion. THIS IS CALLED RED HERRING AND IT IS A FALLACY!!!

      Now, when a person commits a fallacy (many, in this case), and that fallacy is pointed out and explained, if that person continues to use fallacy — especially the same one — it is a demonstration of dishonesty. The person is showing you they do not care to learn — period. This is why Brent’s comments will no longer be allowed on this thread: because Brent has demonstrated no desire to understand or hold a rational discussion. All this reader wants to do is disrupt the board and, since it is my blog and he is NOT holding to my rules (mainly to operate within the confines of Natural law), he is no longer welcomed here.

  13. Universal health care legislated by a nation is at minimum justified in order to have a healthy national defence. Justice springs from the individual but is not necessarily bounded – dogs cats and govt can suffer injustice I suspect

    • Universal healthcare is theft, and, therefore, can NEVER be considered ‘fair’ or just.

      • You have provided an argument against universal healthcare, yes. But failed to limit it. Your presented argument can be used for any government function, such as the military. Your argument as it stands is one for anarchy.

        “In order to provide ‘free’ healthcare to all, money has to be taken from one person to pay for another, or healthcare personnel must be forced to work for free. Either way, the government is forcing someone to work for the benefit of another.”

        As is the basic description of all government functions. Your argument if applied under natural law is people have no right to organize a government, because as you argued it’s all theft.

        • No, I have not failed to limit it. I simply assumed readers have reviewed my previous work on this blog.

          The difference here is that, in order to provide universal health care, the government must force one citizen to work for another, then force another citizen to pay for the service. Essentially, this is the person receiving care ‘voting’ to enslave the provider and the person who pays for it.’ You cannot agree to any such arrangement under Natural Law!

          On the other hand, paying taxes to support LEGITIMATE functions of government (a legal system, national defense, foreign affairs) CAN be agreed to under NL — because it does not require anyone be forced to do anything. Police, soldiers and diplomats all volunteer to serve the nation. And, as part of accepting the protections afforded by the Social Contract which is the government, one agrees to pay their fair share of supporting that government.

          Therefore, you are making a false comparison, which is a logical fallacy (and a violation of Natural Law).

          • “The difference here is that, in order to provide universal health care, the government must force one citizen to work for another, then force another citizen to pay for the service.”

            So if A is true, then B is true.

            So if Universal Health Care, then complusive service in Health Care.

            First on the list of countries that provide Universal Health Care, Australia.

            Australia has no complusive service and doctors are not forced to work.

            Therefore, your if A is true, then B is true arguement is false.

            BTW, how do you feel about a national draft?

          • WRONG! You assume that, just because you do not use a weapon to force doctors to care for people, they are not compelled to care for them. THIS IS NOT TRUE!

            Furthermore, you are using an example that has not yet reached the point of critical mass. Why not use a country where universal healthcare HAS reached it? (BTW: Australia was NOT the first. I think you need to look to good old mother Russia for that, my friend 😉 )

            Anyway, if a doctor is NOT being forced to care for people, then he/she should be free to pick and choose their patience. Somehow, I doubt Australia allows that. Or, a doctor should be allowed to limit how many patients they see. Again, I doubt this is how it REALLY works in Australia. I doubt this because I understand how socialized medicine works.

            Finally, I noticed you conveniently left out the poor bloke being robbed — and this time, LITERALLY at the point of a govt. gun — to pay those doctors to care for people. Typical O:-)

  14. I don’t seem to be able to reply directly to your comment so forgive me.
    First,

    “Finally, I noticed you conveniently left out the poor bloke being robbed — and this time, LITERALLY at the point of a govt. gun — to pay those doctors to care for people. Typical O:-)”

    I didn’t ignore it. You failed to prove how it was different from other Government services you say are acceptable. We are forced to pay for what you say is okay and I pointed out the other distinction you made was false.

    I’ll retread this ground.

    You stated,

    “The difference here is that, in order to provide universal health care, the government must force one citizen to work for another, then force another citizen to pay for the service…On the other hand, paying taxes to support LEGITIMATE functions of government (a legal system, national defense, foreign affairs) CAN be agreed to under NL — because it does not require anyone be forced to do anything.”

    The last sentence is key. “because it does not require anyone be forced to do anything.”

    I want to address this point with an earlier statement, “On the other hand, paying taxes to support LEGITIMATE functions of government(…) CAN be agreed to under NL.”

    So the whole of your argument for police and other services is, that as long as the people providing the service are not forced to provide it, taxation is acceptable.

    Therefore, I didn’t have to talk about the people paying the tax. I only needed to address the individual and their compulsion to work. By proving it wasn’t forced, I proved it to be equal, by your logic, to the police.

    “Furthermore, you are using an example that has not yet reached the point of critical mass.”

    Irrelevant. Your statement, “The difference here is that, in order to provide universal health care, the government must force one citizen to work for another, then force another citizen to pay for the service.”

    Is if If A is true, then B is true.

    You clearly state, ” in order to provide universal health care, the government must force one citizen to work…” Universal healthcare by this statement requires compulsive service from the beginning.

    It is not if A is true, B will eventually be true. I have disproved your argument.

    “Anyway, if a doctor is NOT being forced to care for people, then he/she should be free to pick and choose their patience. Somehow, I doubt Australia allows that. ”

    Somehow I doubt a free market would accept that. Any doctor working in a hospital is obligated to see the patients the hospital admits. That’s the terms of employment. You aren’t arguing universal healthcare, your arguing employee, employer relationship.

    A simple google search shows that although Australia has universal healthcare, it also has doctors with private practices. So yes, there are doctors that can choose their patients. Just like in America. I assume they start working in a hospital where their employment contract dictates their actions and after some time from the experience gained, move to private practice.

    “BTW: Australia was NOT the first. I think you need to look to good old mother Russia for that, my friend”

    I’m sorry, I meant alphabetically first.

    But, I think you mean the Soviet Union. It stopped being Russia when it fell to the communist revolution and wasn’t Russia until after the collapse. However, your argument falls apart since that is a function of the form of Government, not healthcare. After all, the Soviet Union forced people to be police. Be your argument above, this would not be allowed under NL. So your observation is more of a function of Government and not one of healthcare.

    “WRONG! You assume that, just because you do not use a weapon to force doctors to care for people, they are not compelled to care for them. ”

    Finally, you’re right. They can be compelled, by their humanity. That is not an argument. If you want to argue an invisible force then state what it is, otherwise, that is meaningless.

    • You can keep trying to argue this point, but you will never succeed at making a service into a right. It is a violation of Natural Law, pure and simple. And if it violates Natural Law, it is not and can never be a Right. If it is not a right, then govt. has no business forcing it on an entire nation — period!

      In this case, health care can never be a right because — whether you see it or not — it places a demand on the legitimate rights of another person (mainly their free will and labor). At some point, someone, somewhere, must be FORCED to assist in providing national healthcare, and that makes it a violation of Natural Law. Therefore, govt. has no LEGITIMATE business in this area.

      The police, legal system and military, on the other hand, ARE extensions of legitimate Natural Rights — the right to self defense.

      We cannot contract with each other to give something to ourselves that we do not have an individual right to on its own. I have an individual right to self-defense, so I can lend part of that right to the govt. through the social contract. But I have NO right to force you to care for me when I am sick. Therefore, I cannot lend that right to the govt. If I cannot give that right to govt., then govt. has NO legitimate authority in that area — period!

      Now, you are free to keep objecting, and all Socialists do, but that is because they are lawless: they reject Natural Law in favor of their own desires. Essentially,. they see themselves as their own gods. This is why their ideas NEVER work: because they are akin to sweeping water up hill. You can do it for a short time, but gravity will eventually win.

      • “The police, legal system and military, on the other hand, ARE extensions of legitimate Natural Rights — the right to self defense.”

        Correct.

        Healthcare is tied to a natural right, the natural right to life. I’m sure you are familiar with these words, “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

        Unless you wish to claim people do not have the right to life.

        As you said, “We cannot contract with each other to give something to ourselves that we do not have an individual right to on its own.”

        We have an individual right to life, unless you refute this.

        If you do not refute an individual’s right to life, than you have argued against yourself.

        “Now, you are free to keep objecting, and all Socialists do, but that is because they are lawless”

        Wow, another fallacy, or actually several tied into one, Ad hominem, Hasty Generalization, and Faulty emotional appeals. Please, where did I ever say I was a socialist? I don’t recall ever typing that.

        • Healthcare is NOT tied to your right to life!!! If that is the case, then I can uses your “If A, then B” perversion of logic to argue we should have a right to sex! How is that going to work for you? Are you going to support the govt. passing a law that says we cannot object to being raped? I mean, heck, if there is a right to sex, because that is part of your right to life, then it isn’t even rape. It’s just biology. So, by your reasoning, we have a right to biology (i.e. sex with whomever) because we have a right to life.

          Now, before you object, you best think carefully — because you cannot object RATIONALLY without destroying your argument for universal healthcare. You see, a right is something you can exercise on a deserted island. If you are alone on an island, you have your right to life, but not to healthcare — BECAUSE THAT DOES NOT EXIST IN NATURE! You need a second person and a claim against that person’s will and labor to have a ‘right’ to healthcare. So, when are you going to let the dude down the street have his way with you? I mean, how can you deny him: it’s his right after all.

          Oh, and I did not use ad hominem. I did not insult you. Nor did I use an emotional appeal. I simply stated a fact. If you object to a fact, then you are being irrational (another fact). There are no fallacies involved — none at all. Again, you need to read the argument for Natural law, because you are arguing for things based on a rejection of the principles governing Natural law, which means YOUR’s is the argument based on fallacy (another fact).

          NOTE TO THOSE WHO MIGHT BE READING ALONG: B is wrong. This is not my ‘opinion.’ It is simply a fact. There is no ‘right’ to anything that requires a government to provide. If it does not exist OUTSIDE of government, it cannot be a right. This is because those things that require govt. are social constructions, and thus, they are not “Natural.” This is by definition. So, if they are not part of nature, how can they be part of Natural law? For example: you can live, defend yourself and act of your own free will whether or not there are other people on earth. But you cannot have healthcare until there is another person and you institute soem form of force to cause that person to provide it to you. HOWEVER, the moment you lay a claim to that person’s will or labor, you are claiming to own them. That is a claim against their life. But B says we have a right to our own life. Well, if I say I have a just claim against your life, then how can you have a right to your own life? I am claiming to own it. In other words, B is justifying slavery cloaked in an emotional appeal. THAT is not only a fallacy, but also a violation of Natural Law.

Your comments are wanted and welcome, but are moderated before posting

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s