

If you want war, work for justice - jacoblyles
http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/2009/04/if-you-want-war-work-for-justice.html

======
jacoblyles
This is why I don't enjoy talking politics with many groups of people. If
someone assumes having the wrong opinions is _evil_ , then the discussion is
likely to be uninteresting and achieve nothing more than hurt feelings.

Once having the right opinions becomes a matter of _justice_ , then you might
as well end the discussion right there.

While I agreed with a lot of their positions, in retrospect the anti-Bush
movement was bad for the level of discourse in this country. People became
accustomed to dismissing their opponents as evil idiots, and this phenomenon
is especially noticeable among my generation.

This relates to Paul Graham's "Small Identity" post. Having a small identity
probably correlates with having a smaller domain where one invokes passionate
moral outrage.

~~~
viewsonic1234
_While I agreed with a lot of their positions, in retrospect the anti-Bush
movement was bad for the level of discourse in this country. People became
accustomed to dismissing their opponents as evil idiots, and this phenomenon
is especially noticeable among my generation._

While I agreed with a lot of their positions, in retrospect the pro-Bush
movement was bad for the level of discourse in this country. People became
accustomed to dismissing their opponents as evil idiots, and this phenomenon
is especially noticeable among my generation.

~~~
viggity
Both sides handled it poorly, but what I primarily saw was the pro-Bush side
dismissing their opponents as just "idiots" or "well intentioned idiots", not
"evil idiots". Which, is obviously not good for a healthy debate, but an idiot
is totally different from an evil-idiot.

"Democrats are the party of hate. Republicans are the party of fear" - Penn
Gillette

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tG6JYsm1GmM>

~~~
viewsonic1234
The pro-Bush side encompasses a wide variety of people on the right and I'd
swear that some of them thought the left were evil and were shovelling
bucketfuls of hate as well. Maybe if you just listened to some of the more
civil pundits on the right like David Brooks, William F. Buckley Jr. or George
Will then you got a different view.

------
abrown28
Compromise is how you lose.

Group A believes that they should have a right to free speech. Group B
believes frees speech is alright except in certain circumstances. Group A
compromises with Group B. Who won? Group A has less of what they already had
and Group B has more of what they wanted. Now that Group B has won what about
Group C, D, E, and F? I'm sure they will all want to compromise with Group A
too.

~~~
tokenadult
_Compromise is how you lose._

It probably depends on what you are comprising about, and how much scope for a
freely negotiated deal there is in that subject matter. In general,
negotiation rather than compulsion makes both parties to the negotiation
winners.

I'm pretty much a strong advocate of freedom of speech, having lived in
countries without it, but just for mental exercise I'll try disagreeing with
the example you give, which I agree is well chosen to force agreement with
your much more general point.

What if Group A says, "We should have a right to free speech to impugn your
mother's moral character," and Group B says, "We like free speech in general,
but we think defamation should still bear legal penalties." Is your example as
strong if it is that concrete?

------
narag
Time ago I was told some wise words: "don't try to please those who don't want
to be pleased". When you maintain an open mind talking to people that doesn't,
on the long run you end up giving up all you believe in, while the others
don't move an inch.

A negotiation works better considering interests instead of justice, but it
has to be for both parts. If you see it as interests and the other part sees
it as principles, you lose always. I have seen this in some processes that
have lasted twenty years..

You can't negotiate with religious organization for this very reason: they see
everything as a matter of justice, so while the title is right, the example is
hopelessly wrong.

------
physcab
I find this post pretty interesting for a couple reasons.

First, doing a quick wikipedia search tells me that he is a law professor at
Santa Clara University (where I went to undergrad) which is a Roman Catholic
Jesuit institution. He is an atheist.

Second, he's basically arguing that the common slogan that people working for
social justice often say "if you want peace, work for justice" is
rather..hmm..presumptuous?

I haven't read any of his books, but it seems like such a radical position. I
wonder where he gets his beliefs, because certainly the institution that he
works at is exemplary in promoting compromise...especially when it comes to
religious thought.

~~~
byrneseyeview
It doesn't seem very radical at all. It seems like the slogan he's attacking
is thoughtlessly radical, since it amounts to saying "Be an absolutist; if you
can't find common ground, your opposition must be neutralized or destroyed."
Is it really radical to say that this is not a healthy view?

------
gills
I think the blog makes an interesting point, though the author seems to frame
justice differently than I might; as "the thing that benefits <my group>",
whereas I think Rawls (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Rawls>) would frame
justice as fairness that does not infringe upon one's basic rights (given a
social contract etc. etc.). Given that perspective, it's difficult to argue
either side of something that is based on a different conception of justice.

But...escalation to war over this definition of justice seems like a failing
of rational thought and possibly intentional blindness to another's
perspective -- so theories of justice and social contracts which assume
rational and reasonable humans don't really come into play, do they?

------
zenlinux
Working for justice can also involve accepting compromises along the way to
one's goal.

~~~
ajdecon
But you're still taking the view that your goal will be achieved eventually,
unaltered, right? And if your opponent knows that your goal is unchanged, and
his does not change either, compromise is worthless: you're both bargaining
from a position of bad faith that assumes you will eventually _win_.

------
gojomo
Friedman quotes the mild, pleading, bumper-sticker form of the attitude he is
criticizing: "If you want peace, work for justice".

There's also the group-chant version: "No justice, no peace". In that form,
it's almost a threat: agree with us or we'll riot.

~~~
knowtheory
This is potentially specious.

My reading of "No justice, no peace" is not "If there is no justice, then will
not allow peace", but rather "Without justice, peace is not possible"

This is the far more sensible reading imo. A free, peaceful societies must
rely upon universal, and equal enforcement of law in order to encourage and
protect peaceful behavior.

That's not to say that there aren't other ways to attain a "peaceful" society.
Totalitarian regimes may have little to fear from their citizens, but only
through the extermination of dissent and corruption. But, that's where the
"free" part is important.

~~~
gojomo
I'm not talking about a 'reading' of "no justice, no peace" in written,
analytical form.

I'm talking about it chanted by a large group on the move with a grievance.
Context, volume, and tone matter.

The chant is occasionally extended to "no justice, no peace, fuck the police"
[1] and the phrase is celebrated even without that extension for its
association with "fighting back" [2]. The phrase is also used euphemistically
to predict riots are due [3].

In the protest-chant context, everyone knows it has two meanings -- _both_ the
cryptic threat, and the more cerebral koan -- at the same time. Indeed, that's
part of its charm -- people who aren't quite ready to throw rocks and break
things can chant emphatically along with those who are ready, and get a little
vicarious thrill that some serious shit _might_ go down... "even though we
didn't really mean things to get out of hand".

[1] Many examples via
[http://www.google.com/search?q=%22no+justice+no+peace+fuck%2...](http://www.google.com/search?q=%22no+justice+no+peace+fuck%22)
and a nice graffiti example [http://uriohau.blogspot.com/2007/08/steven-
wallace-coroners-...](http://uriohau.blogspot.com/2007/08/steven-wallace-
coroners-report-released.html)

[2] as in this poster <http://www.flickr.com/photos/seven_resist/3115883713/>

[3] as in this blog entry,
[http://www.danteross.com/blogs/dante/2009/01/08/oscar-
grantt...](http://www.danteross.com/blogs/dante/2009/01/08/oscar-
granttravesty-of-justice-part-2-million/) , where "...like I predicted it’s
gonna get hot in the Bay….No Justice No Peace" is used to introduce a news
clipping titled "Rioting in Oakland"

------
mahmud
Is this guy serious? he is confusing justice for stubbornness.

~~~
jacoblyles
I think he is saying that people tend to be more stubborn when a discussion
involves justice than when it involves conflicting personal interests.

------
jibiki
I'm kind of ignorant about this subject. Are most wars started by moral
disagreements?

~~~
tokenadult
People who start wars may claim that they are starting wars because of
principle when they are really starting them because of expediency.

The author of the submitted blog post is an economist, and as his example
points out, if people are FRANK that what they are arguing about is personal
expediency, they can usually be persuaded to make reasonable trade-offs that
reach a mutual, peaceful agreement. But if people think "justice" (who defines
that?) must always be defended to the utmost, they are unlikely to reach
agreement with other people who have different ideas of what justice is.

A readily apparent example: is there some basis in "justice" to say which
national government should control the territory of east Jerusalem?

~~~
jibiki
> People who start wars may claim that they are starting wars because of
> principle when they are really starting them because of expediency.

This makes it very hard to evaluate whether "if you want war, work for
justice" is a true statement. (The counterargument runs something like
"appeasement never works, etc. etc." Of course, the proponents of this
position find lots of examples where appeasement fails, but that's obviously
only half the story.)

------
viggity
Sure anyone can call anything they want "just". But for the most part they're
wrong. I'm not going to dance around saying that a moral is what you want it
to be. Moral relativism is for the spineless.

There are certain fundamental truths. Sure, there might be some shades of
gray, but white and black exist in the world. The lens through which true
justice be viewed is: how does taking one action over another effect the
advancement of the human condition. Therefore, as evidenced by history,
justice sits on the side of freedom.

~~~
ajdecon
Sure: black and white exist in the world, and there are fundamental truths.
There is justice in the world. But there exist people who will disagree with
your view of justice, and the question is how you will interact with them. If
compromise is impossible, coercion is the only answer, right?

In general I've found that zeal for justice correlates with the tendency to
disregard the possibility that one's own argument is wrong. That's the danger:
if you can't even admit the possibility you're wrong, you really have no
options apart from agreement or conflict.

~~~
viggity
> If compromise is impossible, coercion is the only answer, right?

Not necessarily. Ideally, these people should be ignored. It isn't until they
are actively standing in the way of freedom that real conflict should occur.

> That's the danger: if you can't even admit the possibility you're wrong, you
> really have no options apart from agreement or conflict.

Like I said, there is plenty of gray in the world (like how to best promote
freedom). But I and every person who values freedom should be prepared for
conflict. And I'm ok with not having any other options other than conflict if
it means freedom.

------
abrown28
Silly.

------
known
Muslims must review, refine and rewrite QURAN now.

    
    
           * Christians have corrected BIBLE on Slavery.
           * Hindus have corrected VEDAS on Untouchability.
    

[http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=5397035431&topic=7...](http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=5397035431&topic=7836)

