Day 224: Justice and Human Rights - Part 4 - Social Justice: Merits and Deserts

When Aristotle discussed the concept of Justice - he spoke of remedial or corrective justice, which specified how to punish offenders of the law, but he also spoke of distributive justice, where he asked how much each one should get of what, or: how should resources be justly distributed? Aristotle's concept of distributive justice is what is currently known under the term 'social justice'. It is thus not a 'new' concept, but one that has been occupying the minds of people since the ancient period.

We'll have a look at three principles that are often put forward as a basis for 'just' distribution of resources:
1. The principle of merit and desert
2. The principle of need
3. The principle of equality

The principle of merit and desert states that people should be treated according to what they deserve. Material rewards should only be handed out to the deserving. When someone receives something they didn't deserve or when someone doesn't receive something they DO deserve, an injustice occurred in this view.

The question that arises here, of course is: What constitutes a merit?

Is the fact that someone is more talented a basis on which to provide them with more material wealth? Does the person deserve this or is a person's talent merely a matter of luck or chance, and so - not part of one's merit? But then, what about those people who have a talent that they developed themselves through hard work, something they did not have a natural disposition towards, but a skill they developed until they became talented in it? And then - how to distinguish between natural endowments and merits?

Or does merit have to do not so much with how much one contributes by virtue of one's talents, but based on how much effort a person puts in. Here - two people who are equally productive may not be rewarded the same way, because for one it was a struggle while for the other it was a breeze. So - then, the reward-system of distribution based on deserts would create incentive for individuals to place themselvs in positions of struggle just so they could 'earn more'. But is that the kind of life you would encourage for individuals? And - if each one acts accordingly, by choosing a profession or a task they struggle at most - will this really produce the best results for society as a whole?

According to liberalists, the free market is the best system to evaluate merit and desert, where prices and wages determine what a person's contribution is worth to others in society. Yet - herein is not considered that most successful businessmen or businesswomen are not so because of 'merit' or 'desert', but because of privileged backgrounds, because of heritage, because of luck and because of socio-economic access to opportunities. And a classic example I like to use is: who deserves the highest pay: the mineworker who physically works every day or the CEO of the mining company whose most strenuous effort is to place a signature here and there? What is often argued is that the CEO has an investment to lose, and therefore is putting more on the line - but then the counterargument is of course: is the mineworker not putting his life on the line and is the CEO's investment worth as much as his own life?

Liberalists like to pretend that the free market models are perfect for assessing the merit of individuals in how much they contribute to society, but they are actually merely using these models to justify why such huge inequality exists - where they can say: 'Well, you're worse off because that's what you deserve'. And then difficult-sounding jargon is used and graphs are presented that apparently prove their point - but the truth of the matter is: the free market system is not based within merit - it is merely based within competition - and herein, the system does not consider who works harder or who deserves more - it does not make such value judgments - it simply balances opposing forces and then ends up somewhere in between.

Others of a more socialist orientation propose a planned economy, where a person's merit is directly measured by a public institution, such as a government. However, the problem still remains in objectively stipulating the conditions under which we are now speaking of merit and whether such merit-based system will provide the most favorable resutlts.

Psychologically speaking, deserts are linked to a person's expectations. If a person expects to receive high material rewards and then does not receive them, a perception of unjust deprivation will arise, whereas - if a person has adjusted its expectations to previous patterns and as such, does not expect much, may not feel as though they are being deprived of what they deserve - simply because the expectation pattern is different. However, does that mean that the one person is really being deprived and the other not? Is there an objective way of establishing just reward versus unjust deprivation or are these concepts too much influenced through relative perception?

Related articles

• Day 315: How many Human Rights Can You Afford?
• Day 223: Equality of Opportunity: Introduction - Equality and Human Rights - Part 3
• Day 218: Justice and Human Rights
• Day 222: Justice and Human Rights - Part 3 - Substantive Justice
• 364.Education is a Human Right |Equal Money
• Day 220: Justice and Human Rights - Part 2
• 367. Children's Human Rights | Equal Money
• Day 221: Are Humans Equal? - Equality and Human Rights - Part 2
• Day 219: Equality and Human Rights
• 359. Equal Life Rights

Read More

Day 218: Justice and Human Rights

Within this Blog I will be exploring different concepts of Justice and investigate what Justice would be in the context of upholding Constitutional Equality as What is Best for All in an Equal Money Capitalistic system. This will probably turn out to be a series rather than one blog-post. So - walk with me.

The word 'Justice' has been applied in different contexts, which can be laid out as follows:

1. Legal Justice
    a. Procedural Justice
    b. Substantive Justice
2. Moral Justice
    a. Distributive/Social Justice
        I. Justice as Entitlement
        II. Justice as Fairness

Legal Justice vs. Moral Justice

Legal justice refers to adherence to the law as a set of rules that determines part of how humans are to behave towards each other and towards the environment. Legal justice, then, as to do with the content of these laws as well as how these rules are established, applied and enforced.

Moral justice has to do with moral values of what is fair, right and correct. Moral justice then has to to with prescribing how humans ought to interact with each other and who ought to get what.

Looking at the relationship between moral justice and legal justice - it is obvious that legal justice attempts to specify moral justice in relation to specific circumstances and situations - where legal justice is the 'concretization' of moral justice. Now, what is fascinating - is that 'moral justice' is often seen as a 'fuzzy' concept, or having to do with 'fuzzy concepts' such as 'rightness' and 'goodness' - where it seems it is hard to define what those words actually entail - and yet, it is those words that serve as the basis for legal justice - where legal justice - where legal justice is the justice that is applied unto a population and is supposed to yield just results - and where it is trusted that this is what the legal system intends to do. But if we are not clear on what moral justice exactly is - then how can we assess that the legal system is in fact just?

We have in all countries and even between countries a complex legal system in place - but when the question is asked: 'but what is morally just?' - then we have to scratch our heads and we refer to the law - saying that 'well, whatever the law says'. So - we're running in circles where we are attempting to establish just and good societies, where we all have an opinion about what rules should be in place, and where each one thinks their proposed rule is the right one - but where no-one has ever stopped to sit and discuss what 'rightness' is - and where the time has not been taken to come to a definition of 'justice' that all can agree on.

Many parts of the legal system are, for instance, determined by customary law - and all that means is that legal status has been given to customs and 'how things are usually done' - this ultimately proving that we cannot trust that the legal system in any way has the purpose of justice at heart - but rather attempts to merely control transactions, interactions and individual behavior.

To be continued.

Related articles

• Day 363: Basic Human Rights and Crime (Part One)
• 357. Self Leadership and Equal Money
• 362. Water is a Human Right | Equal Money
• 359. Equal Life Rights
• Day 368: "Please Save a Child"
• Day 352: Occupy Wall Street and Zeitgeist: Can the 99% Count?
• 325. Public Good in Equal Money Capitalism
• Day 292: The Dignity of Suicide vs The Shame of Poverty?
• 360. Humanitarianism and Equal Money
• 327. Collectivism in Equal Money Capitalism

Read More

Day 155: Constitutional Equality as the Rule of Law

Jury of One’s Peers?

A system of justice from the perspective of having to evaluate and assess what must happen when a person is in a mental disorder, and therefore disrupting society, through a Jury of One’s Peers, is not an effective procedure. The effectiveness of peer-review lies within the expertise and level of skill of those reviewing. A procedure through a Jury of One’s Peers based on a selection of citizens from a broad spectrum of backgrounds (race, nationality, gender, education) in no way whatsoever ensures the effective evaluation and assessment of a person’s disorder and decision of specific correctional facilitation. The only point such a jury of peers serves, is to provide a broad spectrum of bias through which a person’s behaviour resulting from mental disorder is assessed.

The assessment of a person’s behaviour ought to be based on a very simple pattern: is the pattern that one is living that which is Best for All Life or is it Not? As such, the legal system won’t be as much a system that is governing or regulating according to the laws that exist – as most of the laws will cease to exist in an Equal Money Justice System. The justice system will operate very simplistically. You will have your primary constitutional law and you will have your management regulations – which together form your guidelines according to how man co-exists in harmony.

At any time when behaviour deviates from the principles and guidelines to sustain harmony in society, one will go through a process of origin identification and correctional facilitation by experts.

The Less Laws, the Less Crime

“The more laws are written, the more criminals are produced” – Lao Tzu

The focus of Justice within an Equal Money System will not be that of criminalization, it will be a matter of harmony or disharmony. A harmonious society cannot create criminals, because crime as such does not exist, and can only be the result of the laws in place creating it. Laws dictate what is legal and what is illegal. In a society where regulations are formulated according to the principle of what is Best for All, there will be no reason to step ‘outside’ of the law. If ‘illegal’ behaviour does take place, it is not sufficient to merely label the behaviour as ‘criminal’ and attempt to ‘force’ the individual to comply with the law, or simply remove them from society. Instead, it requires to be re-assessed whether the regulations in place are indeed Best for All. If the disharmony is not a result of the existent regulations, the disharmony requires to be corrected on an individual level.

Therefore, there will be no criminals – criminals only exist as the result of a disharmonious society, where instead of looking at what is in the Best interest of All and assessing people’s behaviour within the principles of harmony or disharmony , laws are designed to protect certain interest groups and thus by implication excluding others

There will thus be only One Law, as the Rule of Law as the Constitution based on Equality and what is Best for All Life. All other guidelines will be in the form of policy and regulation, which will be required to be laid out within the utmost specificity. Within adhering to specificity and clarity to the utmost level, no space is left for the interpretation of law or policy. If at any stage it turns out that a door for interpretation was left open, this would indicate that the law or policy is not good enough and will have to be specified to close the gap. As such, there will no longer be a need for lawyers as ‘experts’ on law or courts for the purpose of interpreting the law. Education within the Equal Money System will provide everyone with the necessary reading skills to be able to effectively read and assess laws and policies for one self – at the level that it should be assessed, so all can be on an equal ground of understanding and clarity.

http://equalmoney.org/wiki/Justice

www.equalmoney.org 

Related articles

• Day 154: The Application of Justice in an Equal Money System
• Day 151: Media, Law and Information Accessibility within an Equal Money System
• Day 150: Voting Responsibility and Tight-Knit Communities in an Equal Money System
• Day 148: Policy Initiation and the Role of Administrators in an Equal Money System
• Day 147: Constitutional Equality and Voting in an Equal Money System
• Day 149: Credits and Levels of Administration within an Equal Money System

Read More

Day 151: Media, Law and Information Accessibility within an Equal Money System

News and Media in an Equal Money System

Within an Equal Money System, the role of News and Media will be specific in terms of World Management rather than entertainment. The principles underlying News and Media will be based on how one can effectively co-exist on Earth.

Accordingly, the role of news and media in an Equal Money System will be twofold:

Policy Education

The implementation of any new law or policy will first go through a process of education to the public, to ensure effective understanding – as any laws and policies will have to be brought into being by everyone collectively. Within this, television will be used as the primary media to present educational information regarding the law/policy to be implemented in the form of documentaries and news broadcasting.

Watchdog

News and Media will also provide a channel for journalism as a form of ‘public policing’ where people can write or report on specific points which are not working effectively, which will then be addressed accordingly.

Law in an Equal Money System

Law within an Equal Money System will be required to be laid out within the utmost specificity. Within adhering to specificity and clarity to the utmost level, no space is left for the interpretation of law or policy. If at any stage it turns out that a door for interpretation was left open, this would indicate that the law or policy is not good enough and will have to be specified to close the gap. As such, there will no longer be a need for lawyers as ‘experts’ on law or courts for the purpose of interpreting the law. Education within the Equal Money System will provide everyone with the necessary reading skills to be able to effectively read and assess laws and policies for one self – at the level that it should be assessed, so all can be on an equal ground of understanding and clarity.

Accessibility of Information & Privacy

The tracking and gathering of individuals' information is a problem currently, as this data is being abused in the name of profit and is an outflow of inequality. Within a system of equality however, tracking of information is an essential component. In order to distribute resources most effectively, one requires to have information as completely as possible – to ensure that the basic needs of everyone are satisfied to the best of our ability. Within a system of harmony, one wants their information available – as a lack of information might result in one not receiving their part of the resources and support relating to one’s specific individual needs and requirements. In such a case, one would be the cause of one’s own disharmony.

Due to the transparent nature of any movement of information within an Equal Money System and its organizational structure – any point of abuse occurring will immediately become visible and will be dealt with accordingly (see the Politics wiki page currently for more information on the point of abuse). 

Related articles

• Day 147: Constitutional Equality and Voting in an Equal Money System
• Day 148: Policy Initiation and the Role of Administrators in an Equal Money System
• Day 149: Credits and Levels of Administration within an Equal Money System
• Day 150: Voting Responsibility and Tight-Knit Communities in an Equal Money System

Read More

Day 81: The Role of Government in the Economy

In one of the previous blogs, we explained how there's different degrees of government involvement in different economies.

The information within this blog will specifically relate to the role of government within the context of a free market system approach.

Supporters of the free market system see the private sector as way more efficient than the public sector/government because of its 'competitive nature'. So keep this in mind when reading the blog.

The role of the government within the economy is considered within four points:

1. The first point is that the government should not get involved in the production of good and services lol.
2. The market system / economy does however need the government in terms of providing a form of stability and certainty through laws, rules, regulation, monitoring and enforcement. These points need to be in place for firms and consumers to make contracts. Also think about for instance property and copyright laws.
3.  Markets do not always produce efficient outcomes, and sometimes the government requires to intervene to 'correct' the market failure (think Bailouts)

4.  It's generally acknowledged that markets produce relatively efficient outcomes but not equitable ones. So when society wants a higher level of equity as for instance in the form of a more equitable distribution of income -- then this requires government intervention. This is seen as a controversial topic within economics as our system is designed in a way where there is mostly always a trade-off between efficiency and equity

There are generally five ways in which the government can intervene within the economy:

1. A first way is through public provision of goods and services such as infrastructure and 'national defence'. This is done through either public ownership or by public financing within the production processes of the private sector (eg subsidies). In recent years it also has become more popular for the government to hire the private sector for the provision of public goods.

2. Another way in which the government can intervene is within its position as a market participant. The government is the largest employer of labour within the economy and as such it can through for instance its wage policies and other practices achieve certain objectives.

3. The government can also influence the economy through its expenditure/spending. Besides influencing the economy through its spending patterns of goods and services, it can also engage in something called 'transfer payments' -- these are basically payments where the government doesn't receive anything in return. Examples are subsidies, child support grants, disability grants

4. Another method is through taxation. Although taxations' primary purpose is that of government income, it can also be used to manipulate the economy (eg sin taxes on tobacco, alcohol or lower tax rates for smaller businesses). In those cases taxes function as incentives.

5. As mentioned before, the government is important to the economy for a rule of law point of view. Through laws and regulations the government can also impact the economy. Here consider minimum wages, anti-tobacco laws, minimum prices, etc.)

Read More

Day 30: Save the Planet, Kill the Camels! - Part 1

About a year ago - the Australian government was considering passing a law that would allow the killing of camels to reduce greenhouse gasses!

"Each camel belches an estimated 100 pounds (45 kilograms) of methane a year, which is equivalent to a metric ton (1.1 U.S. ton) of carbon dioxide in its impact on global warming. That’s roughly one-sixth the amount of CO2 that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says an average car produces annually."
--Admin of B-Fair Project, 2011

And because camels are apparently such heavy polluters of our dear environment, it is okay to kill about one million of them. This is proof of the genius of the human mind - I mean - what a beautiful solution to save the world! In order to save our planet, let's go and kill some more wild animals! Instead of actually looking at the real polluters in the world - the humans - we'll go kill off animals because, what? - they fart?!?

The idea to kill all humans is a much less ridiculous and preposterous idea than to kill all camels - it's definitely more fair, seeing humans are the most destructive species alive today and it would also be a far more effective solution in actually saving the planet - as humans are the only species who deliberately destroy the planet knowing full well that there is another way, for the sake of greed and profit.

The truth behind the story is that the Australian government just wanted to get rid of the camels because they are seen as a threat - there are so many of them running amuck that they trample vegetation, invade human settlements and scare people as they rip open their bathroom pipes in order to find water. So - they are seen as a 'pest' and a 'threat' that needs to be 'taken care of'.

What they don't tell you is that camels are not indigenous to Australia - the cause of the problem, as usual - is the human. In the 1900s camels were introduced to Australia as a means of transportation. Once there was no need for them anymore, they let them go and now they're doing what they have to do in order to survive. So - instead of just re-locating them to an area that forms a natural habitat for them, it's easier and (more importantly) cheaper to just kill them all.

It's fascinating, on top of all this bullshit, that the 'truly' wild camels (camels that were never domesticated) of China and Mongolia are a highly endangered species - where there's only about 650 of them left in north-west China and 450 in the desert of Mongolia - making them the 8th most endangered large mammal on the planet.

I have tried to find any information relating to whether or not this law has been passed - but sadly enough, the media is just not there to properly inform us about the state of the world. There was a big hype when the information got out about the new law that was being proposed and countless of articles can be found about how the Australian government was considering this point - but I couldn't find a single article about whether or not the law had now been passed. If the media was truly concerned with informing the general population, then they would've followed through on their story and their would've been at least as many articles on the topic of the initial consideration of the law as on the actual result of the discussion. Media has shown once again that it merely cares about sensation and doesn't really have anyone's interests at heart.

Sources:

Admin of 'B-Fair Project', 2011. Killing Camels For Carbon Credits. 26/06/2012. http://www.b-fair.net/?p=2441

Wild Camel Protection Foundation. 2010. http://www.wildcamels.com/

Read More