Justice vs. Freedom --- You can't have both choose one....

[GreenStox]

I started thinking about this fundamental paradox that lies in the depth of human society.

On 1 hand there is the justice advocate people who always blame everyone else, but themselves, for any problem on the world, and they usually have a deep sense of injustice , thinking about starving children and can't tolerate inequality amongst humans, even if, by default God or Nature, depending on your religion, has created us unequal. Well not in the sense that 1 person has more right than other, but in the sense that, we have different skills and different talents, differents strengths and weaknesses, and we can only become better if we cooperate voluntarly and not try to force eachother to equalize ourselves. A world where everyone is 100% equal would be pretty boring isnt it?

On the other hand, there is the freedom loving people who don't really blame anybody for anything, nor they don't care, they do, but their methodology differs from the other people in the sense that they let eachother choose their life freely without restrictions. But of course the drawback of this is that people will remain inequal here, as they should be, but this will upset the other group.

So my view is that you can't have both, because each group fights for their own rights, and they contradict eachother. Now in a democracy obviously the 1st one wins always because they are always in a majority, but that doesnt mean they are the absolute righteous people.

I`m always for freedom, but i understand that this will not have alot of justice. In a free world alot of criminals will get away with their crimes (not to say that will all this law enforcement nowadays they don't?  They still get away with it even now), but my view is that we should not strive out all of our freedom just because 2-3% of us behaves criminally. This 1 for all and all for 1 collectivist mentality is just naive and stupid.

So there is really 2 stand on this:
- Freedom: a perfectly free society, with unjustice but alot of opportunity to overcome the injustices
- Collectivism: a tyrranical society which treats everyone equally, discourages the talented and dismisses and helps the untalented, where everyone is told to do the "common good" (which apparently doesnt exist), and subjugate their individuality for the sake of their community
- Mixed Society: neither Freedom, nor Social Justice is achieved, so basically its worthless and doesnt satisfy eithe group (this is the current society in most countries on earth)

Now it's  worth to point out that "collectivism" is not just leftists (communist, socialist and progressives) but also rightists (nationalists,fascists).
So don't get fooled by the left & right paradigm because it's an illusion, they are all collectivists because they think they have a common good or a society to subjugate themselves to (either the community - proletariat  or the "nation" ) which is the same thing painted differently.

While the free-man is  free from all of these, atleast inside his head, as society still expects from him to subjugate itself. So I see that freedom is much valuable than justice, because freedom enables humans to have more opportunities, than justice can ever compensate for their disabilities!

Let me know your opinion!

[1714617432]

1714617432

[1714617432]

1714617432

[Mike Christ]

The free way of achieving justice is through disassociation e.g. exile; the offending party must make up for what they did in order to be welcome again, which returns their reputation to a balance in the given society.  It's a lot like prison, except they're being kept out of society via refusal to participate with them, rather than in a box in society; this is hard to pull off in a group of millions of people, but not so hard with lots of communities with local governance (which is probably what's going to wind up happening in a voluntaryist environment.)  If this individual cannot be located for whatever reason (say, they were anonymous on a website), then helping the victim get back to a state of normality is another form of justice; sometimes this is simply impossible, e.g. loss of loved one, but for many cases it's doable.  There was something which happened fairly recently, where an overweight man was laughed at and caught on camera dancing.  So then people on twitter found out who the guy was and threw him a dance party so he'd feel accepted for who he is.  Not the most serious case of injustice but it was certainly a righted wrong.  There was another answer to this injustice: put people who fat-shamed in prison.  So essentially, the libertarian approach, and the authoritarian approach; fortunately the libertarian approach won out, the wrong got righted, and nobody gets hurt.

There's never justice in a society with a state, because the state is always on a different moral standard than everyone else; for there ever to be true equality--which seems to be what justice seekers desire--there cannot be a class of higher beings with the power to do that which the individual cannot.  By this I mean, for there to be a state, there must first be a monopoly over at least one service within those political lines, usually being the security industry, so the monopoly is enforceable at all.  If a state cannot hold a monopoly over anything and is perfectly equal to all other businesses in those political lines, then it's just like any other business, no longer a state.  The state itself is an injustice; it physically stops people from doing what it does, then proclaims nobody can do it like they can like there was an option.

There will always be justice so long as there are people who seek it (and trust me, they're everywhere); the only difference between the free and confined is how they pursue this justice.  There's the authoritarian approach to justice, which requires the initial injustice, the "necessary evil", followed by violent action, and then there's the libertarian approach to justice, as described above.  You don't have to choose between justice and freedom, just between a free approach and a non-free approach; justice-seekers are tireless people who just don't let any injustice go without recourse.  Everyone's got a conscious, nobody but those who commit injustices will participate with kin, and since most people--as in like +90% of people--aren't these types of people, it's pretty obvious who wins out in the end.  That means a clear majority of healthy, functioning societies, and a tiny portion of miscreants.  To be exiled is essentially to be cast into hell; this is incentive enough not to commit injustices, assuming someone understood no other incentives like leading a happy productive life.

Of course, there are some perversions of what justice is, such as, say, communism, where the only way people feel there would be justice is if everyone was on perfectly even ground, in status and property and wealth etc.  Even this was a joke because there was still a state who was unequal to everyone else, who were the true owners of these things and people, not the public which they claimed to represent.  It's very bizarre, you see forms of this happening even today, primarily in identity politics where some race/gender/whatever wants some form of equality to another, and it's always through an authoritarian approach: others must change for them, not the individual seeking the change (because the other way around is "victim blaming".)  I consider this, in itself, a form of injustice, but those who seek it, ironically, are often called social justice warriors.  A strange perversion of language but it's a very real, active and sadly popular approach to justice in the world.  I'm not sure how these people can be dealt with, except in the way I mentioned prior: disassociation.  Essentially, I just refuse to know these people: don't work with them, don't follow them, don't recommend them, avoid avoid avoid.  The more people do this, the harder it is for the offending individuals to get ahead in life, which encourages them to change their minds: no force required.  It's like a partial exile: they're not completely removed from society but they're definitely more limited than they were before, even if only by a little, but you know what they say about the power of the individual.  And there are far worse offenders than these people of course, but those are more obvious cases; nobody wants to know the thief, the murderer, the rapist.  All that needs to change is the approach.

Collectivism has long been known to be a complete and total failure, it's just completely unnatural for human beings to live this way; it only occurs in the minds of the imaginative that such things are possible, but the facts are clear that people need to be able to surpass others in order for society to function prosperously (of course, it can still function for some time depending on how much and how fast it can burn through capital, i.e. the reason why the USSR took several decades to collapse instead of collapsing instantly.)  Everyone's different, everyone has different talents, some talents are more valued than others, some people are better at certain things than others, and some people are great at allocating resources, and some people are bad at it; the worst case scenario is voting with a ballot who should be in charge of such allocation, because most people do not know who is great at it and who is not--ignorance of the ability primarily--and this is even assuming democracy is perfect and free from corruption.  In a market, people give their money away to people who know how to allocate resources properly enough to form a profitable business; the business is profitable because it fulfills a need or desire with as little waste as possible, objective superiority in resource allocation as opposed to the subjective "whoever is most popular" approach.  People don't need to understand how to run a business to know which businesses function the best for their needs, because the most efficient businesses have the lowest prices for the best products.  It's as perfect a system as mankind can muster thanks to the process of evolution: all the other systems failed miserably, and continue to fail miserably as we see in places like Venezuela and soon to be Greece, which is why the most prosperous societies of today don't use them but this market system instead.  Sadly, that initial injustice, of the state, gets in the way of this system to right the supposed wrongs via the authoritarian approach, and the authoritarian justice-seekers continually push us back into this previous era where violence is believed to solve everything.  Thankfully, people are continually moving away from this belief.

[jaysabi]

It sounds like a false dichotomy. There is nothing to suggest freedom and justice are interchangeable or on a sliding scale where if one is maximized the other is minimized, even if trends you see in society suggest this to be the case. The trick is not allowing people who wield political power to use it bestow political favors; this is where the perversion of justice comes from. Eminent domain, civil asset forfeiture, police ticket quotas, privatized prison systems: these are perversions of justice where the people who make or enforce the law are incentivized to limit freedom for the private gain of their cronies. Just because that's the way the system has operated doesn't mean that's thee way it has to operate. We can have justice and freedom, if the people had the will to hold politicians responsible and quit swearing fealty to a particular political party.

[username18333]

I started thinking about this fundamental paradox that lies in the depth of human society.

On 1 hand there is the justice advocate people who always blame everyone else, but themselves, for any problem on the world, and they usually have a deep sense of injustice , thinking about starving children and can't tolerate inequality amongst humans, even if, by default God or Nature, depending on your religion, has created us unequal. Well not in the sense that 1 person has more right than other, but in the sense that, we have different skills and different talents, differents strengths and weaknesses, and we can only become better if we cooperate voluntarly and not try to force eachother to equalize ourselves. A world where everyone is 100% equal would be pretty boring isnt it?

[…]

(Red colorization mine.)

“[𝙸]nequality” (GreenStox) results from the valuation of “different skills and different talents” (GreenStox). Therefore, it is not innate to a human but manufactured (here, in the consciousness).

[Enjorlas]

Let me know when the collectivists/statists start talking about how great roads are and I will come along to refute their arguments shortly.

[ACP]

I started thinking about this fundamental paradox that lies in the depth of human society.

On 1 hand there is the justice advocate people who always blame everyone else, but themselves, for any problem on the world, and they usually have a deep sense of injustice , thinking about starving children and can't tolerate inequality amongst humans, even if, by default God or Nature, depending on your religion, has created us unequal. Well not in the sense that 1 person has more right than other, but in the sense that, we have different skills and different talents, differents strengths and weaknesses, and we can only become better if we cooperate voluntarly and not try to force eachother to equalize ourselves. A world where everyone is 100% equal would be pretty boring isnt it?

On the other hand, there is the freedom loving people who don't really blame anybody for anything, nor they don't care, they do, but their methodology differs from the other people in the sense that they let eachother choose their life freely without restrictions. But of course the drawback of this is that people will remain inequal here, as they should be, but this will upset the other group.

So my view is that you can't have both, because each group fights for their own rights, and they contradict eachother. Now in a democracy obviously the 1st one wins always because they are always in a majority, but that doesnt mean they are the absolute righteous people.

I`m always for freedom, but i understand that this will not have alot of justice. In a free world alot of criminals will get away with their crimes (not to say that will all this law enforcement nowadays they don't?  They still get away with it even now), but my view is that we should not strive out all of our freedom just because 2-3% of us behaves criminally. This 1 for all and all for 1 collectivist mentality is just naive and stupid.

So there is really 2 stand on this:
- Freedom: a perfectly free society, with unjustice but alot of opportunity to overcome the injustices
- Collectivism: a tyrranical society which treats everyone equally, discourages the talented and dismisses and helps the untalented, where everyone is told to do the "common good" (which apparently doesnt exist), and subjugate their individuality for the sake of their community
- Mixed Society: neither Freedom, nor Social Justice is achieved, so basically its worthless and doesnt satisfy eithe group (this is the current society in most countries on earth)

Now it's  worth to point out that "collectivism" is not just leftists (communist, socialist and progressives) but also rightists (nationalists,fascists).
So don't get fooled by the left & right paradigm because it's an illusion, they are all collectivists because they think they have a common good or a society to subjugate themselves to (either the community - proletariat  or the "nation" ) which is the same thing painted differently.

While the free-man is  free from all of these, atleast inside his head, as society still expects from him to subjugate itself. So I see that freedom is much valuable than justice, because freedom enables humans to have more opportunities, than justice can ever compensate for their disabilities!

Let me know your opinion!

there is a choice other than politically and society it has been around as a symbol and when it is expressed it rises above all
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1022128.0 the symbol is what overides all as a lifestyle,think about it

[Sithara007]

I started thinking about this fundamental paradox that lies in the depth of human society.

On 1 hand there is the justice advocate people who always blame everyone else, but themselves, for any problem on the world, and they usually have a deep sense of injustice , thinking about starving children and can't tolerate inequality amongst humans, even if, by default God or Nature, depending on your religion, has created us unequal. Well not in the sense that 1 person has more right than other, but in the sense that, we have different skills and different talents, differents strengths and weaknesses, and we can only become better if we cooperate voluntarly and not try to force eachother to equalize ourselves. A world where everyone is 100% equal would be pretty boring isnt it?

[…]

(Red colorization mine.)

“[𝙸]nequality” (GreenStox) results from the valuation of “different skills and different talents” (GreenStox). Therefore, it is not innate to a human but manufactured (here, in the consciousness).

I tried really hard but couldn't understand what are you trying to say in this post. Could you please explain a bit. Thanks in advance.

[username18333]

I tried really hard but couldn't understand what are you trying to say in this post.

Code:

  “Value” is a function of supply and demand.

  Supply and demand are extrinsic to both the supplied and the demanded.

∴ “Value” is extrinsic to both the supplied and the demanded.

Code:

  “[D]ifferent skills and different talents” (GreenStox) are supplied, demanded, or both.

  “Value” is extrinsic to both the supplied and the demanded.

∴ “Value” is extrinsic to both “different skills and different talents” (GreenStox).

[GreenStox]

It sounds like a false dichotomy. There is nothing to suggest freedom and justice are interchangeable or on a sliding scale where if one is maximized the other is minimized, even if trends you see in society suggest this to be the case. The trick is not allowing people who wield political power to use it bestow political favors; this is where the perversion of justice comes from. Eminent domain, civil asset forfeiture, police ticket quotas, privatized prison systems: these are perversions of justice where the people who make or enforce the law are incentivized to limit freedom for the private gain of their cronies. Just because that's the way the system has operated doesn't mean that's thee way it has to operate. We can have justice and freedom, if the people had the will to hold politicians responsible and quit swearing fealty to a particular political party.

Well like it's said you can't have it all. It is a slider, the more freedom you have the less justice will be and vice versa.

The freedom of a murderer to murder will cause injustice for the victim isnt it?

Of course i`m not saying 100% freedom, but i`m saying freedom until you don't hurt anybody else, and use force only for self defence.

But still the freedom side is better than the forced tyrrany, no matter how much justice it brings.

[username18333]

[…]

Well like it's said you can't have it all. It is a slider, the more freedom you have the less justice will be and vice versa.

The freedom of a murderer to murder will cause injustice for the victim isnt it?

Of course i`m not saying 100% freedom, but i`m saying freedom until you don't hurt anybody else, and use force only for self defence.

But still the freedom side is better than the forced tyrrany, no matter how much justice it brings.

Murder (literally) bereaves the murdered of “freedom” (GreenStox) via force.

[GreenStox]

[…]

Well like it's said you can't have it all. It is a slider, the more freedom you have the less justice will be and vice versa.

The freedom of a murderer to murder will cause injustice for the victim isnt it?

Of course i`m not saying 100% freedom, but i`m saying freedom until you don't hurt anybody else, and use force only for self defence.

But still the freedom side is better than the forced tyrrany, no matter how much justice it brings.

Murder (literally) bereaves the murdered of “freedom” (GreenStox) via force.

Well actually it's a paradox, because both of them want to have freedom, either to live or to murder, so how to define wich one is more valuable?

Well here comes in morality, its immoral to murder, but its neutral  to live, so obviously in this case the freedom of the innocent person to live is much greater, and should be more valued.

So whenever a paradox like this arises in freedom, you can fill in the logical gap with morality, and it will turn out fine. 

[username18333]

Well actually it's a paradox, because both of them want to have freedom, either to live or to murder, so how to define w[h]ich one is more [bountiful]?

(Red colorization mine.)

“Murder” (username18333) denies the murdered a multiplicity of the expression of “freedom.” Law denies it in but the one instance—that of assailing the prospective murdered.