Justice — there can only be one.
Although “justice” is always in the news, there is little talk of it as a holistic concept or principle. Instead, other types of justice are the buzzwords for allegedly better justice.
The web reveals at least six types of “newer” justice. There is distributive justice, environmental justice, injustice, occupational injustice, open justice, organizational justice, poetic justice, and social justice.
When did these arrive?
How and why?
Aristotle and other historical icons spoke of justice as a virtue. Somebody once said justice is nothing if not consistent. That perspective resonates. Yet variants such as social justice lack that trait.
After all, what is just about a small group of people in government, special interests and academia determining fairness between individuals for equal access to wealth, opportunities, and social privileges in an environment of a nearly infinite number of social and economic relationships and other factors which come to bear in such calculations?
Such an impossibility can only result in the concentration and abuse of power. Talk about injustice. These variants can never be objectively defined much less equalize (read homogenize) humanity into an egalitarian utopia — who would even want to live in such a world?
While nobody owns language, variants of justice confuse the more comprehensive quest and understanding of justice which is counterproductive and dangerous.
Some may think: the world is different now. We are more advanced. We are modern. We are more knowledgeable. We are smarter.
But are we?
The world is different now. We are more advanced technologically. Modernity is a feature of the present. Although there is greater access to knowledge, that neither equates to being smarter nor having wisdom. People are still subject to human nature which has elevated and reduced humanity for millennia.
Could these variants of justice co-manage the infinite overlapping social, economic and political issues that face the world today?
Do these variants favor some people over others?
Do they confuse and dilute the quest for a common thread of justice?
Do they feather the justification for government and the concentration of power?
Would it be simpler, more consistent, easier to communicate, more seamless, and more just to aspire to and implement a single principle of justice to best determine just action and restitution in any situation for all persons, whether connected to government or not?
To maximize justice and thus peace and prosperity, justice should be gauged by a single maxim applicable to all. A singular and consistent understanding of justice exposes, minimizes and decentralizes the power and control exerted by persons acting through the present triumvirate of government, special interests and academia, releasing the stranglehold on critical thinking and expanding the competition of ideas. Only on a level playing field can justice spread.
Unknown to many, there is a single principle for achieving justice — the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP). It is the founding principle of libertarianism and states:
That no man or group of men may aggress against the person or property of anyone else.
“Aggression” is defined as the initiation of the use or threat of physical violence against the person or property of anyone else. Aggression is therefore synonymous with invasion.
Whether an entity is a government, corporation, or non-profit, all are composed of persons who create and consume products and services derived from the environment.
With an accurate understanding of what constitutes a person, property, and ownership, this principle can more consistently and locally solve any type of conflict; thus, it provides a broader and more useful form of justice in how we relate to each other and the world around us.
As with any law or system, it cannot achieve the impossible promise of providing everyone with equal access to wealth, opportunities and social privileges. People can be treated equally under the law, but they can never be equal in body, time, place and resources.
Could social justice or any other variant of justice, be explained in a sentence or two?
Could it be consistently communicated, implemented, and enforced?
Could it achieve more justice than which must result from the application of the NAP?
Greater justice necessarily results in more peace. Long-term peace leads to the creation of greater social and economic interdependence which is the engine of prosperity. Variants of justice, by definition, are limited in scope, plausibility and enforcement; thus, they cannot produce a more integrated, just, peaceful, and prosperous world.
Temptations of superior justice are illusory, leaving only Lady Justice. She is the one.
Rothbard, Murray N. For a New Liberty. Auburn, Alabama: Skyer J. Collins. 1973. Amazon.