Skip to main content

PEACE, JUSTICE, ORDER

I reserve the right to be wrong.



PEACE = Absence of violence or aggression.

JUSTICE = People getting what they deserve.

ORDER = Rule of law.

Is it just me or are peace, justice and order three descriptions of the same thing? And are they not the parent and child of the condition called liberty?

That is to say, the condition of complete rights (freedom, power) over everything that you as a person - as a moral agent - own. That logically means that you do not own anything that other persons - other moral agents - own and so have no freedom or power over what others own.





PEACE

Peace and liberty? Peace seems to be about the simple quiet of the non-initiation of violence of any kind. Perhaps the courtesies and forms of politeness and avoidance of conflict are the peaceful part of our social activities.

Liberty might promote peace insofar as living in liberty makes it disadvantageous to do violent things, where today it is often advantageous to be aggressive or cruel, such as when people riot in protest at something or when police clamp down on such protests by shooting or beating the protesters.

The absence of violence or aggression includes lesser aggressions like coercion. Don't coerce people into things. If you intimidate or shame another person into doing something you are an aggressor, and don't be surprised if a free society finds you to be a disturber of the peace!



JUSTICE

Why should liberty create justice? If justice really is people getting what they deserve, then how does liberty cause that, and how does it absence make it less likely or impossible? .

Now injustice takes in mandatory education, paying taxes, going to government prisons, the military, the police, and let's not forget those monopolists and controllers of justice itself, the government court system and its opaqueness and inaccessibility to all but the rich.



ORDER

Since these three terms are interchangeable, it's difficult to say unique things about them all. Order and peace in particular are almost literally the same thing in two words. Orderliness can be seen as everything moving along smoothly, as everybody getting along, and disputes being resolved quickly and efficiently when they arise.

Contrast this with the human response to government regulation, which is either actual chaos (Haiti and pretty much every low-income country in the world) or paralysis (like the UK utilities, trains, and finance sectors).

The chaos in poor countries takes the form of people resolving disputes through violence, including but not limited to assault, rape, murder, theft, even civil wars and genocide... not quite a gleaming endorsement of the Workers' Paradise.



So the condition of liberty gives rise to those three wonderful - if synonymous - things, and they in turn reinforce liberty.



On the next Ecomony Blogtime; Matt arrests the development of Africa to bring you some fascinating words from our sponsors!

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Zeitardation

A Youtuber called axe863 made a video in which he used scientific, mathematical and statistical common-sense to deliver the KO that the Venus Project and Zeitgeist Movement so richly deserved. If his approach seems weird and unconventional it's because he's not attacking from a tradition neoclassical or Keynesian perspective. Axe863's poison is complexity economics, something a good deal more dangerous to ideas like TVP and TZM. [ 2 ] Now to a couple of comment threads from below the video that I thought could od with being replicated just in case they get deleted at source! ~~~ AstralLuminary 1 year ago Why can't we generalize the consumption patterns of middle-income people in the western world, set our constraints equal to the amount of localized resources, and the rate of resource recovery, derive a population growth model that would be sustainable to said consumption patterns, and derive the necessary quantifiable amount of work required to expen...

RIP Macroeconomics

This post has no intellectual rigour, but I'm posting it anyway, because neither does macroeconomics. Most economists love spending all day doing macro, preferring it to the prosaic small-scale world of microeconomics. This is where the brazen hypocrisy of many heterodox folks will make itself known, as they decry the fallacies of composition rife within neoclassical economics and then go away and commit the same daft mistakes themselves (sometimes quite well disguised) using aggregates of demand, supply, and labour time. Further friction for modern economists can be had when contending with the tripartite division of economics into land, labour, capital, and the action of classes (the 'class' praxis) of the owners of those three economic resources. So, to all of macroecon... you're drunk. Go home and rethink your life.* * Yes I know I just committed a fallacy of reification.

Foreign Policy hates you...

In Foreign Policy a hardcore fluff piece * talks about young Americans falling out of love with capitalism. The closing paragraph is very artful but also insipid and inaccurate. Read it and weep! ~~~ * A fluff piece that does a very bad job of grappling with a subject that is actually important.