Theme: Constitutional Order

DEFINITION: JUSTICE?

Q: Curt: –“[I]t has become obvious that the word “justice” now has a practically unworkably ambiguous definition. It means wildly different things to different people. … What is the NLI definition of “justice”, and would definitions of key terms be part of a new Constitution, as to avoid ambiguity in the judiciary?”– @extra_thousand

What a great question. And what you’re detecting is the conflation of ‘justice’ with ‘moral’ given that humans naturally determine ‘moral’ on their terms, not on universal terms. Hence why our work seeks to disambiguate these issues. And why we don’t use the term ‘justice’ for the same reason Socrates in Plato’s dialogues demonstrated the people had no idea what it meant.

The term ‘justice’ is notorious for its ambiguity and relativity. My assumption given my work is that it means ‘restoration of an irreciprocity regardless of scale’ – a statement which I expect would require you to contemplate that scale – meaning that the concept of justice includes a broad spectrum of interpretations, influenced by philosophical, legal, cultural, and practical considerations.

The point here being that the problem of the law, as a means of producing justice by the restoration of an irreciprocity requires an irreciprocity, encourages a proportionality, but specifically does not suggest equality. In other words goods are produced by eliminating bads sufficiently that there exist only good means remaining – and that goods are produce therefore by externality.

Here’s an overview of the spectrum of definitions, followed by a discussion on which might be most operational in practice:

SPECTRUM OF DEFINITIONS:

Natural Justice (Behavioral Science) – Often referred to in legal contexts, involves principles like fairness, impartiality, and the right to be heard, which are considered inherent or ‘natural’.

Procedural Justice (Process) – Relates to the fairness of the processes that resolve disputes and allocate resources. It stresses impartiality, transparency, and the right to a fair hearing.

Corrective Justice (Civil Restitution) – Involves rectifying an imbalance or injury; this can be seen in legal systems where compensation or restitution is ordered to make amends for losses or damages.

Restorative Justice (Criminal Restitution) – Emphasizes repairing the harm caused by criminal behavior through reconciliation between the offender and victim, and the community. It seeks to restore relationships and heal rather than solely punish.

Retributive Justice (Punishment and Prevention) – Focuses on punishment for wrongdoing, often encapsulated by the principle of “an eye for an eye”. It aims at retribution, ensuring that wrongdoers face consequences proportional to their actions.

Marxist – To – Woke Ambitions:

The central problem: Loyalty to a polity it’s informal and formal institutions is dependent upon the choice of alternative polities versus the incentive to retain loyalty by preservation of reciprocity, meritocracy, and proportionality of returns.
However, as societies evolve in complexity of means of research, investment, production, distribution, trade, contract and dispute resolution, production of commons, and legislation of rights and obligations, then the Nash Equilibrium, Pareto Rule, and Power Law, always exist and if reciprocity, and meritocracy are in sufficient exercise, then proportionality will exist.
Meaning that all members of the polity are rewarded in proportion to their contribution to others. But at the high end all capital is at work in the organization of production distribution and trade for the benefit of others – and not capital-in-hand (money).
As such, the natural differences between people, between sexes, between classes, between ethnicities, between civilizations, and between races will eventually be expressed as a hierarchy of competency in the service of others.
And as such over time, as sophistication increases, only demographic composition (the size of the bottom classes) will determine who lags behind.
And as such the only solution to the feminine-marxist-left’s ambition was the US ‘soft’ eugenics program that sought to limit the reproduction of those who were not productive enough to fail to impose costs upon others in their polity.
This is, and will remain, the only ‘hard problem’ of politics until we restore some version of eugenics, or continue our downward progress in aggregate genetics until progress that provides prosperity ceases (as it has nearly done so in physics).
As such civilizations, states, polities must deal with the genetic load of the bottom in relation to the comparative advantage of other polities, until one of those two conditions occur.

Distributive Justice (Economic Theft) – Concerns the allocation of resources, rights, or privileges. It deals with fairness in how benefits and burdens are distributed among members of a society, often linked to concepts like equality, equity, or need.
Note: This is an effort to couch economic theft from responsible producers to irresponsible non-producers.

Social Justice (Normative Theft) – A broader concept addressing systemic inequalities in society, advocating for the fair treatment of all people in a society, particularly in terms of wealth, opportunities, and rights.
Note: This is an effort to couch a claim for evading the necessity and utility of meritocracy in producing our quality of life, economy, institutions, and traditions such that one can obtain the benefits of responsibility despite evading responsibility for paying the behavioral costs of that responsibility.

Transformative Justice (Systemic Theft) – Aims at not just restoring the status quo but transforming the conditions that lead to harm, focusing on root causes like oppression, violence, and inequality.
NOTE: This is an effort to reduce responsibility for self regulation, discipline, and conformity to high trust western european norms and traditions from which all our comparative benefits as a civilization result. In other words, it’s just fraud.

Operational Definition in Practice:

Our definition of justice as “restoration of an irreciprocity regardless of scale” intersects with both corrective and restorative justice but with an emphasis on addressing any irreciprocity real or perceived at any level.

Here’s how it might operate:

Corrective on Small Scale: On an individual level, this could mean legal remedies like financial compensation or apologies for personal wrongs.

Restorative on Community Scale: In community settings, it might involve mediation, community service, or programs aimed at reconciliation and healing between parties.

Systemic on Large Scale: On a societal level, this could translate into policy changes, redistributive measures, or institutional reforms to address systemic injustices or historical inequities.

In practice, the most operational definition often leans towards corrective justice because it’s easily quantifiable and actionable within legal systems.

However, there’s a growing interest in restorative justice for its potential to heal rather than just punish, especially in community-based resolutions or in alternative dispute resolution mechanisms – despite that such interest only serves to encourage every behavior the law seeks to discourage: evasion of responsibility for self, family, and commons.

Contemplation on Scale:

Micro Level: Personal interactions where justice might mean simply acknowledging and correcting a misdeed between individuals.

Meso Level: Community or organizational contexts where justice involves restoring balance through communal efforts or policies.

Macro Level: National or global scales where justice might involve addressing historical injustices, economic inequalities, or international law violations, where the act of restoration might require significant systemic change or reparative measures.

Cheers
CD

Reply addressees: @extra_thousand