An excerpt from the fictional tales of
The Gentleman from Massachusetts.
Is justice simply a set of laws, ignoring why or how they’re enacted and enforced? Yet who establishes and enforces these laws? If those with self-serving intent establish laws in their favor, is that just? Are those laws now good? Must those governed under such laws rightfully give what is asked of them?
Is justice simply a race: whoever is able to institutionalize a set of rules wins the spoils? If justice is an obvious and indisputable concept, would we need so many laws? Does an abundance of laws serve an intent other than establishing justice?
What is the foundation of justice, if not equality? If established rules favor some over others, can justice exist? Or does a biased system become a tool for greed and malice? If some lack influence upon the laws by which they are governed, can they be equal?
Can a system comprised of biased laws and prejudicial enforcement be just? What purpose is served by calling it justice? Is it simply distraction, a veil to cover selfish deeds? Failing justice, should we at least have honesty, calling this a government of men, and not of laws?
Have we a system in which elites partake in all of the privilege, yet bear none of the responsibility in the maintenance of their dominion? Are the people told they have say, yet have none? Does their infrastructure crumble while the grand old party plays on?
Does healing not start with truth? Can continually treating a misdiagnosis lead to a cure? Shall we admit then, that justice has been a term for manipulation, rather than a meaningful descriptor? Until a government treats all under its auspices as equals, can laws be anything but a method of exploitation?