re: How did the framers understand or define justice?

Still nothing?

I don’t know what this “high trust society” is that you’re talking about. Where I come from, anything left outside your house that isn’t nailed down will be stolen. Stores charge a massive premium due to “shrinkage”, and much of the merchandise is locked up behind glass.

quote:

---

Where I come from, anything left outside your house that isn’t nailed down will be stolen. Stores charge a massive premium due to “shrinkage”, and much of the merchandise is locked up behind glass.

---

You need to move

quote:

---

Can’t. Like most people, my job is tied to my location

---

Louisiana?

quote:

---

Can you explain this? You don't think anyone would come up with the idea that accessing opportunities is justice without a textbook indoctrinating them? Who would have indoctrinated the writer of the textbook?

---

I did not intend to suggest people are incapable of arriving at those ideas independently. I meant that people repeat the language of “justice” without first examining what they mean by it. The question isn’t whether opportunity is good. It certainly is. The question is whether unequal outcomes necessarily indicate injustice, and whether government has either the knowledge or the authority to equalize them. Calling something ‘justice’ doesn’t settle those questions, it simply assumes the conclusion.

My concern is that the modern concept of “social justice” often begins by assuming disparities are evidence of injustice, rather than asking what actually caused them and what the costs of proposed remedies will be.

quote:

---

The injustice isn't requiring a wheelchair. The injustice is not being able to vote, enter a courthouse, or attend school because the building cannot accommodate a wheelchair.

---

If justice simply means removing every obstacle to equal participation, then the word has no limiting principle. Some obstacles are created by people or institutions while others are inherent in the human condition. Treating those as the same thing invites confusion about both the causes of problems and the appropriate remedies.

Do you believe that every unequal outcome associated with a hardship is evidence of injustice?

The distinction matters because it determines what government can reasonably fix and what it cannot.

quote:

---

Tick tock tick tock.

---

quote:

---

Post modernists have co-opted the word "justice" and applied it to social constructs. In their minds, any time two parties are unequal, a crime has been committed, and the victim needs justice. It's the core of cultural Marxism, it convinces people that everything in life they don't like is someone else's fault, and the government is responsible for ironing out these inequities. They don't say why though. Why do you deserve it? The only reason you exist is, a sperm cell from a biological male united with the egg cell of a biological female. That's scientific objective truth. Why are other human beings who had no say in your existence legally responsible for your happiness and welfare?

---

All of this! The issue people like Cubbies make is that they assume inequality = injustice. This is simply false. Inequality is inevitable regardless of how equal opportunities are. People are created equal under God and under the law, but they are NOT all the same. People have varying skills, attitudes, and aptitudes and extremely different environments. A just result may very well be an unequal one when skills or persistence are applied or when one starts with significant advantages.

The purpose of a justice system is to provide equal protection under the law. That means everyone should be, in theory, held to the same standards. People who see inequality as injustice seek to have standards applied variably and holistically rather than follow objective calculable rules. This practice sounds good on paper, but causes the entire system to unravel into chaos and despotism in practice. Without objective standards, those tasked with passing judgment create their own standards, making it impossible to hold them accountable. This makes those positions easy pickings for tyrants and corrupt partisans. If one is to apply the concept that inequality is injustice to its logical conclusion, then all justice must be in service to eliminating inequality. As such, the justice system inevitably becomes multi-tiered, expansive, taking over every facet of life, and having zero guardrails to reign it in.

The reality is that some corruption and injustice will always find its way into a system striving to be blind and providing equal justice for all. However, a system striving to battle injustice by reducing inequality must devolve into corruption and injustice by its very nature. Combating inequality merely requires too much power and too broad a license to be entrusted to anyone.

1000%

quote:

---

Legal, and a highly specialized position at that. It would be very difficult to transfer my skills elsewhere. Plus, anywhere other than Texas would require taking another bar exam. It’s duable, but to relocate anywhere else would require planning a move nearly a year in advance and getting a job there before I move. It’s not particularly feasible.

---

Gotcha my man. Sorry, but I cannot give guidance. If it were engineer in the O&G industry, I might have something.

Still can’t say that one simple sentence eh? 3 little words.


“I was wrong”





Waitingggggg