Justice is what a man must take for himself

"Law is not law, if it violates the principles of eternal justice." - Lydia Maria Child, an American abolitionist, women's rights activist, American Indian rights activist, novelist, and journalist.

Corn cannot expect justice from a court composed of chickens. Thus, justice is what a man must take for himself, when justice fails or denied. Now do not get me wrong. I am not advocating that we take the law unto our hands; because justice is different from law. For instance, an earthquake achieves what the law pertaining to earthquakes promises: destruction depending on its intensity; but in reality, an earthquake, unlike law, which also sometimes errs in its application, does not maintain the law of equality of all men when the event occurs.

Justice

Thus, when one considers it, there is no justice in some laws; because a just law should treat all men as equal; unless of course, there is a higher law of justice, which men do not perceive. However, leaving out laws pertaining to nature and natural disasters, for I believe they abide by a higher law, the cosmic law; fairness in protection of rights and in the punishment of wrongs is justice. While all legal systems aim to uphold this ideal through fair and proper administration of the law of the land; it is possible to have unjust laws. The concept of justice is, based on numerous fields; and many differing viewpoints and perspectives. They include the concepts of moral correctness, equity, ethics, rationality, religion, and fairness. Of course, the concept of justice differs in every culture and varies at varying times.

In fact, throughout history various theories were, established about the concept of justice. However, in the main, justice is the quality of being just, righteous, equitable, and of moral rightness. Thus, fairness, justness, fair play, fair-mindedness, equity, equitableness, even-handedness, egalitarianism, impartiality, impartialness, lack of bias, objectivity, lack of prejudice, open-mindedness, non-partisanship, all constitutes justice.

Karma

Hence, justice is the tolerable accommodation of the conflicting interests of society, and I do not for a moment believe that there is any legislative road to attain such accommodation concretely, because it is the spirit and not the form of law that keeps justice alive.

The Buddhist approach to justice begins with individual behavior. The moral law of karma, in which good actions generate positive consequences and bad actions negative ones, is at its core. Buddhism is primarily a contemplative religion. Nevertheless, from its earliest times there has been a strong social justice ethic, born from the fundamental principle of compassionate action. According to the Buddha, as human beings we make choices that have consequences. If these choices are, informed by wisdom and compassion, the outcome will be happiness; if they are, informed by greed, hatred, and delusion, the outcome will be suffering.

In the sphere of social justice, the Buddha pointed out that, while it is normal for people to want to experience the pleasures of life, when greed becomes excessive it creates conflict. This conflict is rooted in the reality of limited resources; and when some decide to take for themselves beyond what is reasonable, others go without. Thus inequality is born, from which stem jealousy, distrust, lies, crime, and violence.

To manage these stresses, humans invent social constructs such as laws, customs, classes, private property, and government. Therefore, in contrast to the understandings canvassed so far, justice may be a human creation rather than a discovery of harmony, divine command, or natural law.

Law

However, this claim also creates a fundamental division between those who argue that justice is the creation of some humans, and those who argue that it is the creation of all. Be that as it is, I must also say that justice is an ideal the world fails to live up to, sometimes due to deliberate opposition to justice despite understanding, which could be disastrous to the question of institutive justice.

It raises issues of legitimacy, procedure, codification and interpretation, which are subjects considered by legal theorists and by philosophers of law; and is not for laymen such as I.

For advocates of the theory that justice is part of natural law, it involves the system of consequences that naturally derives from any action or choice. In this, it is similar to what the Buddha taught or, for that matter, the cosmic law, and the laws of physics that is a part of the cosmic law. For instance, in the law of physics, the Third of Newton's laws of Motion requires, that for every action there must be an equal and opposite reaction akin to the karmic law of the Buddha and the Hindu religion.

Justice also requires according individuals or groups what they actually deserve, merit, or are entitled to. Justice, on this account, is a universal and absolute concept: Laws, principles, religions, etc., are merely attempts to codify that concept, sometimes with results that entirely contradict the true nature of justice. Justice, however, is incidental to law and order. Law raises important and complex issues concerning equality, fairness, and justice.

The belief in equality before the law is, called legal egalitarianism. Equality before the law is one of the basic principles of classical liberalism. Classical liberalism calls for equality before the law, not for equality of outcome. Classical liberalism opposes pursuing group rights at the expense of individual rights.

In the Republic by Plato, the character Thrasymachus argues that justice is the interest of the strong - merely a name for what the powerful or cunning ruler has imposed on the people through laws.

Nation

In fact, the more corrupt a nation, the more numerous the laws. Somebody recently figured out that we have in the world, 350 million laws to enforce the five precepts of the Buddha and the Ten Commandments. That works out roughly to one law for every three point five million people.

In our country, I am certain it would be something like a law for every 100,000 or less citizens; and you can work out how corrupt this nation is.

Even with this situation of a surfeit of law, I must say that crimes occur and criminals know their rights better than their wrongs. Laws, in fact, are like cobwebs: they catch small flies, but let wasps and hornets break through.

This is also the cause for why, the vices of the rich and great are mistaken for error; and those of the poor and lowly, for crimes. It only proves that the greatest crimes are, caused by surfeit, people who have much, and not by want. This is also why I say, ours is neither a justice system nor a just system; it is just a system because; the law condemns and punishes only actions within certain definite and narrow limits; it thereby justifies, in a way, all similar actions that lie outside those limits.

Laws can also be fishing nets in the hands of the government: for government takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong, and mostly to its own members. Aside from the fact that the State is itself the greatest criminal, breaking every written and natural law, stealing in the form of taxes, killing in the form of war and capital punishment, it has come to an absolute standstill in coping with crime. It has failed utterly to destroy or even minimize the horrible scourge of its own creation: crime. When taxes are, imposed on the basic-necessities such as food, water, clothing, and homes of people; I call it legal plunder. Government ought to teach the people by its example. If the government becomes the lawbreaker through the imposition of unjust taxation - unjust because such taxation is diverted into the pockets of the politicians - and imposes unjust laws to cover its dark deeds; it breeds contempt of the government; breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.

For views, reviews, encomiums, and brickbats: [email protected]