An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life, a limb for a limb. That’s justice. If you kill me but for punishment you only get punched in your grill that means you got the sweet end of the deal. That is a system that encourages criminality. If you kill me and your whole family gets wiped out that is injustice to the innocent and totally wrong (sorry Sicilians but your ethics lose out on that one.) One of the elements of justice is that it must be commensurate to the crime. That is why life in prison fails as a punishment for murder.

People mean different things by justice. When I say it I intend to denote “due reward”, or “you get what you earn.” When someone talks about economic justice, they usually mean something completely different. In that context it us used to mean that everyone should get the same results ($$$) regardless of what they earned (which is the exact opposite of the other meaning of justice). Here you can have two people using the same word and meaning two entirely different things. Each side ends up thinking the other side is really stupid when it’s really all a problem of semantics.

There are other equally nebulous terms. Freedom, fair, equal, and right come to mind. All men are created equal. How so? Height, weight, intelligence, and birthmarks? No. The only way to interpret equality in this context is in innate worth (it is not ok to violate some people while wrong to do the same to others). This is called equality before the law. We distinguish ourselves from others by our deeds and these can be accomplished regardless of race, ethnicity, creed. . . they are open even to the ones who God so obviously hates like the despised midgets.

If you ask me to clarify it I would say that the collectivists are the camp of compassion and equality of results. They are the ones who maintain that men have a duty to their neighbors whom they have never met. They also tend to believe that wealth is a finite thing that exists without cause rather than a product of work. They think that loot can be redistributed and that this won’t dissuade producers from producing.

The individualists are the ones who believe in getting what you earn and equality of opportunity. The duty you owe to your neighbors is to keep your word and expect no one else to take care of your own ends against their will. Individualists also know that wealth is a product of work and that if you redistribute someone’s work product against their will that is the same as making one the slave of another. So herein lies the difference which is that individualists uphold freedom whereas the socialists believe in slavery.

53 Responses to “Justice”

  1. As a lifeform, mankind is designed to trade value for value. This rarely happens.

  2. Mexigogue says:

    It happens at the bar. I think that’s why I like going there so much. I give them money, chicks bring me beer and quarters for the pool table. Then on the pool table you get what you earn as well. The 8-ball doesn’t go in or miss depending on your race or whether or not you’re a Mason. It goes or not depending on how you shoot it.

  3. guy in the UNLV jacket says:

    The all men are created equal thing in the Declaration of Independance was a swipe at the British system that didn’t allow members of their colonies representation in Parlaiment or seats on the mothership. The colonists could only aspire to being a member of the funk mob. In the past 230 years, all funkadelics are created equal has gone on to mean alot of different thing to alot of different funkadelics out there because we all need the funk, gotta have that funk……

  4. Mexigogue says:

    We got a real kinda thing goin’ down gettin’ down there’s a whole lotta rhythem goin’ ’round.

  5. R says:

    I don’t know that I’d agree that individualists uphold freedom, per se. By individualists, the way you describe it on your post, you mean capitalists. (Word up on motherfuckin’ capitalism!) And capitalism is intended to harness human greed. And it has done so brilliantly.

    But freedom? I think not. You’ve got a lot of individualists/capitalists who depend on starving Indonesian children to sew the Nike swoosh onto shoes they sell to fat-ass American fucks who’ll pay $200 for ’em. You tell me then just exactly what the fuck, freedom or slavery, that individualist is upholding?

  6. Mexigogue says:

    That’s not slavery. No one is forcing the Indonesians to work. They choose to work because it is better for them than not working. It’s the same reason I work. And if some fat ass American fuck wants to drop $200 on some shoes what business is that of anybody else’s??? As long as he earned it he can dispense with it as he sees fit.

  7. guy in the UNLV jacket says:

    What do you suggest the Indonesian factory owners pay their employees? Better yet if you were a factory owner in Indonesia, Tiawan what would you pay your little starving funkadelics?

  8. R says:

    Yo, I’m sure the Indonesian factory-owning fucks pay their funkadelics JUST ENOUGH to survive and get their bony asses back to work the next morning. They don’t have labor laws over there like we do.

    And if we were really about promoting freedom, we’d refuse to do business with people who don’t treat their funkadelics well.

  9. Mexigogue says:

    They wouldn’t choose to work if working wasn’t a better option than not working. Their standard of living is raised, however paltry it may seem to you. If we create an artificial minimum (interfering in the free market) those funkadelics would likely all lose their jobs. Then they would starve to death and not only that I couldn’t afford to buy shoes and so we all lose.

  10. Cosmic Siren says:

    Freedom and self-interest don’t always go hand in hand. For some people, it’s in their best interest to have someone take care of them and that requires giving up some freedom.

  11. R says:

    Yeah, I know your points are valid. It’s just the way you phrased it in your post. I don’t know that we can say individualists uphold freedom. Because, really, what the fuck do we know about Indonesian funkadelics and what kind of freedom THEY want? Why does it have to be a choice for them between death and paltry wages? Are those things their only options? Doesn’t seem like freedom to me.

    I just think that “freedom” is too positive a word for what it is individualists believe in. I think it should be “capitalism,” thereby taking all the good and bad that goes with it.

  12. Mexigogue says:

    If I can hire or be hired, buy and sell property, and conduct business without external (government) interference, THAT is freedom. If I am forced to join a union in order to be employed, or if I am prevented from hiring or being hired at a certain wage because of the law (maybe I want to hire a ‘tard for $5 an hour and he wants to be hired at that wage because it’s better than not working), THAT is not freedom. That is external oppression.

  13. Cosmic Siren says:

    Hell, Life was never meant to be fair – just survivable. Otherwise, we’d get lazy and bored and then we screw it all up by messing with other people for entertainment.

    So, even if Life was fair at first, we’d screw with it until it wasn’t. Humans are just that way.

  14. guy in the UNLV jacket says:

    Now if Sir Nose D’Voidoffunk starts setting minumum wages say at $10/ hour then that will raise costs of doing funk and price the little funkadelics out of business. Then the factories will close and the little funkadelics won’t funking out anymore. Lovetron will be a ghost town with no more visits from the mothership…

  15. Cosmic Siren says:

    Damn! I’m pessimistic this morning. Still trying to figure out how I can tell my friend she needs to stop leaching off people and have some self-respect in a way she’ll actually listen to.

    I have actually told her straight out before and it just went in one ear and out the other. She has this belief that you don’t screw men, they’ll screw you.

  16. R says:

    But you’re assuming everybody wants to work for “just enough.” They don’t. Because when a whole bunch of workers say “fuck your tree fidy an hour or no work at all choice” then what you’ve got on your hands is a workers’ revolution.

    So I say that in order to avoid Marxist shit like that, it’s in a capitalist’s best interest to keep their workers happy. And if that means diverting some of their profit to make them go home happy instead of miserable and getting ideas in their heads involving pick-axes and rope, then so be it.

  17. Cosmic Siren says:

    We’re all greedy. Some of us are just more ruthless at fulfilling that greed.

  18. Mexigogue says:

    They don’t want to work for just enough, they all want to work for six figures. And I want to have a threesome with Maria Shaparova and Nice Rack, but it ain’t gonna happen. They are willing to work for tree-fiddy or they wouldn’t show up to work. And that’s what determines the going market rate.

  19. guy in the UNLV jacket says:

    Would the Indonesians have it any better under a Marxist regeime? Would the Commies pay anybetter? Would nonmembers ot hte party be allowed to work in the factory? What about the farmers would they gladly have their land nationalized. The commies succeded in Russia because the peasants didn’t own any land and had no hope for to break out of their caste. The bouyers owned the land and all those who lived on it. So for the Russian masses it was no big deal for the land to be nationalized….You’ll are killing my funk today

  20. Phelps says:

    R wants to starve Indonesian children! Think about the children!

  21. Cosmic Siren says:

    Good point, R. If you don’t have anything, you’re not likely to care about those who do have something and are getting it taken away from them.

  22. R says:

    Woah, woah, woah. Let me just say right out here that none of my own personal morals or convictions are coming out of what I post. Alls I’m saying is that the nature of societies is such that when the funkadelics are getting screwed at work, what has historically happened is a worker’s revolution. No socialism won’t work any better, and government subsidies suck donkey nuts, but it’s just human nature to want to kill the motherfucker who won’t pay you enough to live above the poverty level. And I’m talking about an employment situation across the motherfuckin’ board.

    I’m not saying everybody deserves six figures. I’m saying that when the whole population is getting jacked by the bourgeoise, somebody’s ass is going to be up against the wall come a collective realization.

  23. guy in the UNLV jacket says:

    Dude a “workers revolution” only happened once and I’m not so sure it was a “worker revolution” as the begining of a morally corrupt empire.

  24. Cosmic Siren says:

    What do you consider the French Revolution? Or what happened in Burkina Faso? About in Hungary?

    If these people weren’t so miserable, then dissadents wouldn’t have been able to gather the forces they needed to overthrow their governments. The workers would have just laughed at them and gone back to their pool games.

    It doesn’t matter if the leaders weren’t of the oppressed – if the oppressed are miserable, they can be incited into action.

  25. guy in the UNLV jacket says:

    I wouldn’t consider them Workers Revolutions! I would consider their revolutions one set of bourgeoise replacing another on the top of the food chain. Since none of these nations had multiparty democracies, the only way to get your voice heard is to overthrow the current gumment…..

  26. Cosmic Siren says:

    Okay, but remember that as Jane Capitalist, if I find out that you, Joe Capiitalist, are really screwing your workers over and I am savvy enough, I could lure your workers away from you as a competitor and then bankrupt you by making you spend all that time and lower production periods to train new people, while I make money just paying the worker you had trained just a little more.

    Competition Rules. 🙂

  27. Mexigogue says:

    That’s the whole point. The market produces the correct values without government interference.

  28. Cosmic Siren says:

    Unless Joe and Jane get married and merge their companies and elminate the competition. THen the workers could really be screwed.

  29. guy in the UNLV jacket says:

    Excatly what Mexi said. Joe and Jane create a market for labor all with out gumment intervention

  30. R says:

    That’s the whole point. The market produces the correct values without government interference.

    That’s only if your system is set up conducive for competition.

  31. Phelps says:

    The systems that are more conducive for competition aren’t set up.

  32. R says:

    Our system is set up. Every system has to be set up; parameters defined, etc.

    Anyway, do you think we shouldn’t have anti-monopoly laws?

  33. Mexigogue says:

    Setting up the free market is like writing an impromptu speech.

  34. R says:

    But what about the anti-monopoly laws? Good? Bad?

  35. Mexigogue says:

    Monopoly is ok if I get to be the horse or the shoe. All bets are off if I have to be fucking wheelbarrow!

  36. guy in the UNLV jacket says:

    Just got back from my lunch time work out a little while ago and guess who was chillin in the locker room? Donovan “I choked the superbowl away” McNabb. He was a pretty friendly guy going around and talking to random people…He also told me that when he plays monopoly he likes to be the battleshp

  37. Mexigogue says:

    As I recall you also met Luke Duke. I never meet anybody famous. Except for that time I met O.J. and I told him he needed to quit taking all that shit from Nicole and it was time he really put his foot down. That was a good old talk, I got him really worked up too and pretty soon he was all like YEAH FUCK THAT BITCH! haha!

  38. guy in the UNLV jacket says:

    I remember when you told me about that, What about the time you told Michael Jackson that it was OK to sleep with little boys…Dude you should have an advice collum

  39. Mexigogue says:

    He trick me. As I recall we were talking about Star Wars and I said if you were doing to freeze to death it’s ok to use your light sabre to cut open your steed so you could sleep in the entrails and thereby maybe not freeze to death. Then he said or if all you had was little boys you could sleep with them? I said I suppose that might work. I didn’t tell him to let his glittery fingers to start a walkin’! DAMMIT!

  40. R says:

    For those of you who’ve seen Napoleon Dynamite, I swear I met the-guy-who-plays-Pedro’s twin brother coming out of a DJ Dan show in Nashville.

    Yeah I was fucked up on caffeine and effederin pills downed with two or three Red Bulls and vodka, but I swear that’s who he said he was!

  41. Phelps says:

    Anti-Monopoly laws are like Anti-Stop Brakes. Laws are what create monopolies. Absent the use of force (which government has a monopoly on) there are no monopolies. The monopolies that exist in America (Cable, Electricity, Roads, etc) exist because the government shoots people who interfere with them. The only time monopolies rise up in our society is when they are specificially mandated, or one business is allowed to dictate regulations that create an artificial barrier to entry for competetors.

  42. Phelps says:

    I’ve met Ross Perot. And Jennifer Flowers. And Nate Newton. I kinda sorta worked for Nate. (I worked on Nate Netwon’s Sports Arena as TD, but he didn’t run the show, he just had his name on it and was talent.)

  43. Mexigogue says:

    I’ve met Jenny Jones and Magic Johnson (but who in these parts hasn’t met Magic Johnson?) Oh, and I used to date Sasquatch.

  44. R says:

    The only time monopolies rise up in our society is when they are specificially mandated, or one business is allowed to dictate regulations that create an artificial barrier to entry for competetors.

    There you go. So what do we do when it happens?

  45. guy in the UNLV jacket says:

    Were you selling weed for Nate Newton?

  46. Phelps says:

    What do we do when someone imposes regulations that create an artificial barrier to entry? Repeal the fucking regs!

  47. Phelps says:

    I wasn’t selling weed for Nate, but I heard later that the guy bankrolling the whole operation was the coke guy of Dallas. So you might say that I was less than surprised when Nate got popped.

  48. R says:

    What do we do when someone imposes regulations that create an artificial barrier to entry? Repeal the fucking regs!

    Dude, stop avoiding the question! You and I and everybody here knows that we’ve had to lay the anti-trust bat down on utilities, steel, and recently Microsoft. Don’t tell me that you believe in only a non-regulated free-market economy. You know what’ll happen when behemoth companies like Microsoft go about unchecked. They eliminate competition.

    I’m sure even those Indonesian funkadelics are aware of this.

  49. mexigogue says:

    If LeBron James becomes too successful shall we cut him up into three pieces?

    Capitalism is not a necessary evil to be reigned in by mobs weilding torches and pitchforks. It is a necessary GOOD. The only alternative to dealing with people through mutual consent is to deal with people through brute force. That has been tried throughout history over and over again with terrible results.

    Capitalistic greed is good. It is not blind luck that the best inventions in the world have sprung up in the USA which has an economic system that rewards innovation. Greed incited inventions like the light bulb, the telephone, the radio, television, the cotton gin (which also helped make slavery obsolete), the Kraft-o-matic toilet plunger/home abortion tool, and yes even Microsoft Windows.

    Greed has created a standard of living for even the poor in this country that was unthinkable even a hundred years ago. There are a lot of products I will buy. Socialism is not one of them.

  50. guy in the UNLV jacket says:

    The Standard oil monopoly wasn’t broken up to benefit the workers. It was broken up because Standard oil was using it’s position of owning over 90% of the national refining capacity to block other companies from entering the market. ATT was broken up for the same reason they ended up owning all the local phone lines and they therefore wouldn’t let any other companies play in the local or long distance market. Both of these companies were broken up to ensure competetion and ensure creativity and competetive prices for consumers. Microsoft was never broken up because they don’t have a monopoly, They are steadily losing ground to
    Linux and apple for domination on the desktop. IE is losing ground to firefox in the browser market. Windows is getting it’s ass kicked by linux in the sever market….

  51. R says:

    Both of these companies were broken up to ensure competetion and ensure creativity and competetive prices for consumers.

    EXACTA-FUCKING-MUNDO! See, there are purists who believe absolutely no dicking around with a free market, which is what I wonder if Mexigogue is.

    I mean we all can see that in practicality, there will be times where government intervention is necessary in order to perpetuate a competetive market environment. It’s had to be done. There can be no purely independent free market.

  52. Mexigogue says:

    I will concede that when Montomery Burns tried to block out the sun that was going too far. But aside from cases where all the natural resources have been bogarted I can think of very few instances that would require outside intervention.

  53. Phelps says:

    I agreed with busting up the utilities monopolies, because those were created by the government. I didn’t agree that there even was a monopoly for steel and M$. I think M$ is a shitty company, but I don’t think that we need the gummint to come in and do anything about it. They will fade away on thier own. In fact, I would argue that the only reason they are STILL around is BECAUSE the government gave them the “seal of approval” when they settled with them.