Freedom, Justice and Equality
sat down to discuss their differences
as to who in the final differentiation
was best for the Citizens.

Equality spoke stating 'Every human being
is to be seen as equal.
Classes, Kings, and Robber Barons
have mounted historically over-weening excesses.

From them sprung oppression, slavery,
disease and poverty
other multiple negatives
in the sad human panoply.

Society rebelled against them
all hoisting my banner
which reads:
'What We Need is Equality'

All agreed this was so
for a time
with Justice finally noting
'Well Equality all you say is true
but also mark
how easy it is to confuse Economic Opportunity
with Political Equality.
Some systems have one
but surely not the other.

These two, of course, are not the same;
in fact you Equality are perfectly
compatible with Perfect Slavery.
All you have to is treat
all the slaves the same!

'Besides' Justice said 'Economic Opportunity
merely addresses the beginning of the race.
What of the middle and the end;
is Perfect Inequality tolerated there
as millions sink into poverty? '

'No' Justice sighed, 'Equality you are a good plank
but you do not over-arc and don't really solve
important problems.
I, Justice, am needed to balance all the ills
you're not able to address.'

Justice shifted slightly in her dark robes
and spoke of that need to protect Citizens
utilizing legal and governing rules.

'Rule by law
not women or men is better
grafted to all systems:
Balancing and adjusting many of the
the ills Undemocracy brings.'

'Justice is centerpiece
where all the values of the citizens
are sifted and set aright-
enforcements of the Covenants.
It is I,
through which
all society is possible.'

Freedom spoke slowly
gathering verbal momentum:
'Justice you are mystical
but in the end precisely note that
laws are made by men and women
and is therefore rule by Judges.
This does not seem to me
to be much better than rule by Kings.'

'No mere Justice
does not work for me.
Clearly the object we all seek,
is Freedom- Me.
Justice merely refers to
misdeeds but not the essence
of what we seek.
That would be me Freedom.
For here is where all potential is protected,
the Cauldron of the Probabilities.

Freedom is what we fight for,
you, Justice, we merely sue for-
if we have the money
to pay your attorneys! '

Equality smiled wryly at Freedom's joke saying
'but you Freedom have many aliases
many definitions labeled;
which Freedom are you today:
Freedom From
or Freedom to
Free speech
or the Freedom of the Road
or merely Freedom From All Rules?
And I would note you proclaim
Liberty For All
while tolerating
Tyranny while at Work.

You Americans define Freedom
as Freedom for Yourself
what of Freedom for Others,
in fact, the Freedom of the World.
You fall silent there.'

Outside a crowd gathered,
Justice leaned to part the curtains,
describing the outside scene.
There was Ethics and Morality,
Nature
God and Divinity
the usual crowd all clamoring
to be heard
or to gain entry.

Freedom said
'they have right to their say.'
Equality mused 'they all make equal claims.'
Justice said 'if given the chance
like vigilante villagers
they'll be pounding closed-fisted
at every citizens door.'

They all agreed
and sipped their tea
until at the appointed hour
when key in lock
admitted the rightful owner of the house.

Citizens Us
was framed in the doorway Portal
with her constant companion Social Covenant;
They entered
with Citizen saying
'You get all three of you
if you chose Citizen Community
because there you get all of you
plus me.

1/18/14

Discussion: Justice, Equality and Freedom Notions in Everyday Life.

Now the above ideas may, at first blush, seem abstract. They are, in fact, very concrete correctly seen, and in context.

In the next few weeks lets take a look at how these, sometimes conflicting notions, play out in institutions, especially in the American example.

Historically they have dominated political discourse in much of world history, impacting society in all of its aspects.

Today we start with the family.

Any parent, aware or not, has juggled these ideas with their children as they try to interpret these ideas to children and navigate the young through the maze of institutions which may have very different notions of these ideas.

Whole nations have not only debated these ideas but have gone to war, fought killed and died over them.

It seems appropriate to ask what do we mean by these concepts, how have they been used, and in what contexts, both personal, nationally and globally?

Some have been faithful to the meaning of these concepts but also, often, these concepts have been perverted for political and other purposes.

But first we look at concerte examples.

For the first example we take those which commonly occur in families with children.

Something simple like deciding upon which movie to go to is our first example.

Opinions will surely differ among members of the family group. (It could also be a group of friends making the same decison.)

How does this decison get made?

We could  simply say the adults (or leaders)  decide and the kids have no final say and they, of course, complain, and often rebel. (Many times exasperated parents simply say:

"Do it because I told you to do it and I say so." Or worse, inflict punishment and pain to get compliance.

What lesson is being taught here? Power overrules, and kids, or lesser beings have no final say, or final vote.

We could say that all have a vote and the majority wins.

Sound familiar?

This is the one person, one vote ethos which is based on the notion that all members of the family, or group are equal in the movie-going decision and we abide by that decision.

Majority rule is an equality notion.

Parents decide is the notion that kids are not grown up yet or not qualifed to make the decision, and hence are not equal. This is also the notion of a republic and/or a merit based system, where those with superior knowledge, experience or skills are allowed to make decisions for the whole.

In group of friends it might be as simple as the person who has looked up all of movies has superior knowledge and therefore has greater influence over the eventual decision.

Note how several different ideas are in play here, and often contradictory.

We could do a justice or freedom idea in this example, (the kids say a siblinb went to a movie of their choice last time and its not fair (just) to let him or her choose again.) A freedom notion in this situation is one where the kids rebell against the parents choose and argue that two or three of the kids should be able to overrule a parent or parents,

A merit notion involves superior qualifications or leader here. For example, let Dad choose beause he chooses a movie most often that everyone likes.

Thus we see all of the above concepts at play often in everyday, concrete situaitons--all are in play and we deal with the abstract ideas in concerte, everyday situations everyday.

What would you do? How you think this situation should be resolved; how and why? I didn't say this would be easy.

That next time.

 1/20/14

How families handle freedom, justice, and equality issues more or less is determined by and/or arises from the structure of the family and its interplay with the other major institutions in a given society.

For background on family structures and these issues  see:

http://www.authorsden.com/visit/viewshortstory.asp?id=49713&authorid=121255

 On the interplay between family structure, politics and war see:

http://www.authorsden.com/visit/viewshortstory.asp?id=55786&authorid=121255