In recent events, Julian Assange has been the focal point of many major media outlets, families in their own homes, students attending school, and within the offices of governmental officials – courtrooms – and police stations..etc. It seems that nobody in this day and age knows exactly what it takes to be a leader.
What shocks me about this – is that most governments across the globe claim to be “moral” and “just.” And what is morality and justice?
What about malum in se and malum prohibitum? What if the morals and justices in question actually refer to malum in se – is it the best interests of the general public? Military crimes for obeying orders?
Is Justice compelled to be equal or balanced? Does one glove have to fit the other?
I don’t think that Justice is innate. When we look at justice, we see a couple things:
1.) Justice being that of a balance – of something balancing another act out.
2.) Justice being that of revenge – of something replacing something else either in the negative sense or the positive sense.
Are we entitled to either balance or replacements should something be imbalanced or taken away?
What are the implications behind restoring balance and having replacements (revenge) when we have been affected by either or both?
I believe that the law sees justice not as “lady justice” would, but rather the opposite – the “replacement/revenge” mindset.
If society silences themselves and falls victim to a corrupt government, is that government required to “replace” their loss with the “loss of the actual government’s freedom to govern?” Who does that actually benefit? Everyone – and I’ll tell you why later on in this article.
Here we have the term Justice. And just what is “Justice?”
We think of it as the law in modern day. The law dictates “justice.” When someone is put in jail or put to death, we call that justice. Is it really? We think about lady justice standing there blindfolded holding the scales. What would she say to the utterance… that justice is putting someone in jail and/or putting them to death?
To me, justice is man made. It’s perceived to be malum – sure, but it definitely isn’t something that existed in Form before humans came into contact with the concept. Sorry Plato – I disagree with you on how that conclusion is reached, and Aristotle would concur.
I think that perhaps Justice came about shortly after humans were able to be articulate to one another – when communication was first happening. Back then, I think it’s safe to assume that it was a one for all scenario where survival was the key. If someone tried to kill you and you killed them – that’s justice because you lived and they died. They were trying to take away your right to live, and because that was an attack on your rights to begin with, you defended yourself using the same tactic: trying to take away their life so your rights wouldn’t be violated. That’s justice in my opinion.
When someone tries to attack your rights without reasonable cause (and this could be argued that the man trying to kill you had reasonable cause because you were threatening his ability to live off of the land by using up too many resources or something) I feel that justice comes into play when you react to that action in such a way as to defend your “right” to live.
So then we have my definition of justice – of action and reaction that negate each other: cancels each other out.
Another example would be:
A lady was put into the court system to be before the judge about taking kittens out into the woods before they were weened by their mother and left to fend for themselves. She was going up on animal cruelty charges. The judge sentenced her to three days out in the woods without anything but her clothing and was told that she couldn’t come out of the woods until the three days were complete nor was she to ask for help from anyone she came into contact with.
And “rights” are not something that are given to us. They are things that we have to constantly defend and it is through justice that we are able to defend those rights. We have “rights” given to us by the US constitution, but we also have (or presume to have) unalienable rights from birth.
So there you have it. Justice.
So historically speaking, we had justice without even knowing what it was. It is exercise of defending of our individual rights.
And now we have citizens of this country claiming that they have rights. Before we can jump into any of that, we must first define what a citizen really is. Just because you were born here, doesn’t mean that you are a citizen in anything other than the eyes of the law.
So, what exactly is a citizen?
Is a citizen someone who supports Assange for wanting transparency and the truth? Is he a criminal that deserves to die because he wants people to be a part of their nation? Is he a criminal for expecting citizens to be knowledgable about what it’s government is doing – and take part…to actually “be” a citizen?
Lets think about this…Support Julian. YOUR freedom depends on it – and YOUR freedom is defined on your citizenship – even outside of the context of the law.