Mr. Veeder,

A clumsily constructed sentence allowed your interpretation.  Protection
against coercion AND compensation for losses incurred as the result of
fraud are together the premier issue.  These form the backbone of
criminal law by which the state shall use its power of coercion to
apprehend and incarcerate adequately identified criminals.  But I did not
say this was the only issue. Next in line is the issue of agreements,
either formal (contractual) or informal (common), and the arbitration of
disputes  where one citizen may ask for the state to exercise its force
to reinstate property lost in a claimed malfeasance.

I include agreements such as standard contracts, which may be used by and
enforced on behalf of those incapable of understanding contracts, the
young, senile, incapacitated, etc. This is the area in which we could
spend most of our intellectual energy for it is wide open and all too
easy to migrate into regulations and penalties before the act of a
malfeasance.  For lack of a better example, take speeding laws which are
enforced at the same speed, day or night,  in heavy or light traffic on
either competent or incompetent drivers all in the absence of a
contemporaneous loss. While the careless and incompetent who create most
of the havoc are allowed to continue after a hand slap.

On the other side of the same coin  are the losses within which the
relevance of malfeasance is debatable ...  gambling, consensual sex,
euthanasia, suicide, abortion and, say, the starving child who steals a
loaf of bread ...  these,  to some degree,  may have to be left between
the perpetrator and his spiritual mentor.

I believe that justice is a social device to mollify our feral imperative
for revenge.  It is a cultivated confidence that the group's power will
be used to prevent or dissuade the criminal from creating further losses
and to exact restoration of the loss where possible.  A good thesis with
which to begin a discussion might be, as you said, "justice is really
just a matter having enforceable laws against fraud?"   I would prefer,
how do we allow the use of force to concentrate in the hands of a few and
yet prevent its misuse?

I guess my concern is that I am finding ideas here which require the use
of force on non-criminals or which allow the use of deceit for in order
to achieve a "greater good."  This just validates the criminal use of
force and deceit.  So whoever holds the gun wins and the Glorious
Revolution Merry-Go-Round never even slows down.

Don Brayton

On Sun, 18 May 1997 11:56:22 -0400 Harry Veeder <[log in to unmask]>
writes:

>
>So the most importance principle in life is "don't commit fraud" and
>justice
>is really just a matter having enforceable laws against fraud?
>
>Harry Veeder
>