Thanks Brad, One of the problems of philosophical complication is that there is no end to discussion and no acceptable conclusion.
However, I doubt there will be much disagreement with the contention that to communicate effectively we should use words that mean the same thing to the communicators. I've previously made the point that we begin with a concept, then we surround the concept with a fence - which exercise is called definition. Inside the fence is only the concept. We give this defined concept a name. When the communicators use this name, each of them knows exactly what the others mean. Communication can then take place. However, we need defined concepts in our own minds even if we never intend to communicate with others.We need a vocabulary to make our thinking more effective. It's a useful shorthand for our thinking processes. However, words that name ill-defined concepts can lead to some peculiar and sometimes dangerous conclusions. So, I like the attention given by the Classical Political Economists to the accurate meanings of basic terminology. It makes thinking about important things possible. You start by asking - if there can be such a thing as justice? My reply has to be - what do you mean by justice? To different people, justice may mean getting even - an eye for an eye. It might mean a chicken in every pot, perhaps a National Health Service covering everyone. It could mean a basic income for everyone, or a lynching for a cattle rustler. It could even mean - as you suggest - "if one gives every person the same thing . . " (There's that "one" I've complained about - the intellectual manifestation of 1984.) Let me start further back. When a consequence always happens we can call it a Natural Law. (Call it Rumpelstiltskin, if you wish - the name is the least important part of the process.) Anyway an invariable consequence is a Natural Law. Now we may not know the precise Newtonian Law, but we know that a moving body is reluctant to change direction. We can make a rule based on that law, such as: "Slow the car before making a left turn." When people gather into community, they make rules of behavior for people to follow. Most - perhaps all - are negatives of the "Harm no-one" variety. Let's say our community makes a rule "Come to a complete stop at a stop sign before entering a high traffic street." (Based on the Natural Law that to things cannot occupy the same place at the same time.) Sensible enough, but perhaps too many people drive when tipsy, or when they are angry. So we turn the rule into a law, which is a formal rule of behavior with a penalty for infringement. That's how a law should be born. Some obvious things - a law should be needed and should be sensible. Importantly, it should apply equally to everyone in the community. A law that applies equally to each member of the community is just. In other words, justice is simply the condition when the laws of a community apply equally to each member of the community. Justice and charity are often confused. If the community makes special laws for some people to benefit at the expense of others (privileges) they may show sensitivity and other politically correct words - they may be charitable, but they are not just. You got into a mess with your "race to the swiftest" as properly you kept finding more variations of the original example. I would suggest that first we establish justice - if we can within my use of the term. Then be as charitable as you wish - but don't force charity on others. It is at its best when it is voluntary. Then we get to "property". You say you believe that "property is theft". I don't understand what you mean. Perhaps we could begin the discussion of property with what you mean by property. Let me know. Harry --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Brad wrote: >Harry Pollard wrote: > > > > Brad, > > > > I note that I didn't get to this post back in May. > > > > Unfortunately, my wife of 57 years died in May after a six week fight with > > the inevitability of emphysema. It was a difficult loss to endure. I put > > your questions to one side and never got back to them. > >(Obviously) sorry to hear of personal misfortune. > >As for "my questions", it seems to me one if not the only approach with >any prospect of accomplishing anything is to try to try to construct >a "model" -- like Galileo and his inclined plane with a >ball rolling down it, and tick marks at regular intervale on the >plane and a clock at hand that marked uniform time increments.... > >Is there such a thing as justice? At one extreme, one has >Emmanuel Levinas, a book of whose interviews I am reading, and the >book has the telling title: "Is it righteous to be?" At the other >extreme, one has the Educational Testing Service and other >organizations like it, which argue that the scores of persons on >their standardized tests are an entirely fair and universal basis >for just distribution of opportunities in civil society (they >would be Confucians with computers?). > >You [may have] said: > > when the "the law applies equally to everyone, we call it > justice" > >So I guess there are at least 2 big questions: > > (1) what is "justice"? > > (2) what is "equally"? > >One possible case for study comes to mind. Suppose we say >"the race is to the swiftest"? Does the fastest runner >gain the first place prize? > >What about the cripple, who says that he cannot run so fast >because he lost a leg fighting for his country, so that >there could be races at all and not just chain gangs? > >But this is still not the end of it, for the fastest able- >legged runner >now protests that he cannot go as fast as another >cripple in a high-tech wheelchair. > >I believe this is even a factual situation. In a race, >what is justice and what is equality? > >In reality, of course, we deal with a Rockefeller getting >a different start in life than a Palestinean refugee's child. > >Even if everyone starts off "equal", some will save and >some will spend-thrift, so that, when drought comes, >the former will have enough to last through the bad >times unless he has to share with the one who put nothing >aside for a rainy (or rainless...) day. But the saver may have >enjoyed the activities which resulted in accumulation, >and the "spend-thrift" may have had huge medical bills, etc. > >OK, Harry, I challenge you to help us, between us, >come up with a "model" on the basis of which we can >have a discussion -- or to come up with some other >approach that both of us can engage with. > >"Property rights". Who has a right to what? Does the >scion of a zillionaire have a right to a demi-zillion >dollars per year for doing nothing and a multi-zillion >if he actually does something (like invent creative >accounting schemes or do some hostile takeovers?). >Does the scion of a welfare mother have the right >to either work as a janitor or maybe run numbers >or sell dope unless he gets caught? Of course, >lets exclude the "fringe" cases: Rich kids who are so >dumb that they lose everything including their connections, >and poor kids who happen to be Titans of the >basketball hoop or somehow get a HipHop recording >contract. > >I don't know where to start, and I do believe that property is >theft, and I see myself as somewhere in the middle of the >"food chain", being high enough up to be a desirable >meal for some, and low enough down to be hungry >for better than I've got. > >Can you try to specify a starting point for a possibly >constructive discussion? > >Did you write? > > > > Justice is simply the condition that exists when laws apply equally > to each > > > one of us. > > > > > > No-one gets what he wants, or needs, from "justice". It's just the > stage on > > > which we act. > >What does this really mean? It could, for one example, >define the conditions of the inmates of a well-run >internment camp where the guards did >not take bribes. Can you operationalize it >in terms of my hypothetical race between the >man with the prosthetic leg, the fast runner and the >man in the high-tech wheel chair? Do you have >a better model? > >Again, sorry to hear about your personal misfortune. > >"Yours in discourse...." -- if we can find a way >to not just talk past each other.... > >\brad mccormick ****************************** Harry Pollard Henry George School of LA Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: (818) 352-4141 Fax: (818) 353-2242 *******************************
--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.377 / Virus Database: 211 - Release Date: 7/15/2002
