justinbasunga

[justinbasunga]

Prior to the many revolutions that led most modern countries to a more democratic form of government, much of the world’s nations were ruled by a hereditary monarch who was granted unlimited and unchecked power over his subjects. This system greatly facilitated injustice by allowing corrupt rulers to indulge themselves in whatever they desired without in any way respecting the wishes or needs of their subjects. Out of this fear and hatred of tyranny came republics and democracies, governmental systems which aim to negate the potential for injustice by limiting the power of any one individual and ostensibly giving all individuals equal representation through elected representatives or direct vote. The United States government is one such example of this reform, and the controversy regarding its super PACs lies in the view that they undermine the democratic principles underlying the election process. As Stephen Colbert reports, super PACs are legally able to give unlimited money from unnamed donors to sponsor any political aim or candidate they desire, with the one stipulation that they do not “coordinate” directly with candidates. As Colbert recognizes, the definition of “coordination” in the eyes of the law is very gray and grants super PACs various loopholes and workarounds to this poorly enforced stipulation. Consequently, the existence of poorly regulated super PACs partially turns the entire election process into a money game, where each politician tries to recruit as many super PAC funds as possible and uses these to promote themselves or disparage their opponents through various forms of American media, like television and radio. Such advertisements, if employed properly and efficiently, can have a dramatic effect on voter opinion, and hence, one could argue that the more super PAC money a candidate amasses, the more influence he or she can exert on the public opinion and thus the greater advantage they have over their opponents. This is clearly unjust because it discourages good and honest politicians who earn voter support through good policies and extensive touring in favor of those who can generate huge amounts of money and earn support through exaggerated, false, or misleading advertisements. These sentiments are reflected in the 2016 political cartoon above, which depicts Hillary Clinton and the Republican Party brandishing super PAC clubs and smashing Lady Liberty into the ground. The representation of super PACs as absurdly large clubs characterizes them as mindless weapons to be arbitrarily swung around by competing politicians who cannot truly contain their power nor predict the damage they may cause, and in this case, said damage occurs to Lady Liberty, or more accurately, to the democracy she is drawn to symbolize. The G.O.P.’s message to Hillary emphasizes the extent to which the unjust super PAC system has corrupted American politics, so much so that, with few exceptions, the super PAC influence of any one politician necessitates that all other politicians gain support from a super PAC just to stay relevant during the campaign race, let alone win, thus the need for super PACs perpetuates itself along election after election as long as at least one politician is willing to utilize them. The super PAC system and the manners in which it undermines American democracy, as represented by the political cartoon above, display just one manner in which the modern world and the systems it has created to enforce liberty and freedom have succumbed to injustice.

Hillary Superpac. (2015, May 11). Retrieved June 22, 2017, from https://www.cagle.com/steve-sack/2015/05/hillary-superpac

[justinbasunga]

Despite depicting a seemingly innocent scene of an outdoor family gathering, this 1754 British watercolor titled “A Family Group in a Garden” by an unknown artist may be viewed as telling of the gender inequality and the social norms they necessitated prevalent in 18th century Great Britain, and in a more general sense, the injustice allowed in that society. Throughout her work “A Vindication of the Rights of Women”, Mary Wollstonecraft argues that contemporary women were degraded by their patriarchal society through a lack of proper education and stripped of any intellectual merit, and were instead valued only for domestic and moral qualities, expected to please and aid men rather than serve themselves. Referring to women’s education, she writes: “On this sensual error, for I must call it so, has the false system of female manners been reared, which robs the whole sex of its dignity, and classes the brown and fair with the smiling flowers that only adorn the land” (Wollstonecraft 53). Furthermore, she argues that because of the petty things women were constrained to learning, they were prevented from acquiring strong talents or virtues, and consequently never received the admiration or respect from men that could earn them a better place in society. In Wollstonecraft’s words, “Pleasure is the business of woman’s life, according to the present modification of society, and while it continues to be so, little can be expected from such weak beings” (Wollstonecraft 55). Both of these points, as well as the general division between men and women in Wollstonecraft’s time, are exemplified by the differing attributes the painter associates with the two genders depicted. Proof of the more general division is most evidently seen in the fact that the men and women are physically grouped together on different ends of the table in the scene. Specifying the superior and inferior parties in this division, the males wear more dark, striking, and contrasting colors, and have various individual quirks in their appearance, signifying importance and independence; the women are dressed in one dull, monotonous color that blends them together as one physically connected whole, and both mother and daughter wear a similar dress and hat combination, signifying a lack of importance or individuality. The males on the left side of the table, with exception of the boy in the center, are depicted with relaxed and comfortable postures, seemingly more focused on their task than the painter’s presence; the women on the right side, with exception of the immobilized infant, pose elegantly for the painting and attentively gaze at the painter. This would seem to indicate that the men are more concerned with their work and personal conversation than social obligations, while the females have little of importance to do and a high concern for behaving appropriately, and thus have no justification to break pose for the painting. Finally, with regards to education: the oldest and thus chronologically first children are male, and the elder brother is writing some type of document under instruction from his father; the youngest and thus last children are female, and the elder sister is distinguished only by the flower she holds. The chronological difference indicates the distinction in priority between males and females, while the difference in distinguishing features indicates where this priority is manifest, education; thus the elder brother practices his reason, handwriting, and English, all relevant intellectual skills, while the elder sister has seemingly practiced only her ability to distinguish and collect attractive flowers, a menial task of manual labor requiring knowledge only of beauty to achieve. Considering these points together, this piece can be argued as reflective of the injustice prevalent in 18th century European society, that is, division in gender roles and the opportunities presented to them, and the educational systems and societal values that reinforced this division. 

T. (n.d.). 'A Family Group in a Garden', British School 18th century, c.1754. Retrieved June 17, 2017, from http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/british-school-18th-century-a-family-group-in-a-garden-t01896

[justinbasunga]

"Ruthless Punishment to U.S. Imperialism." (Korea News Service/AP Photo)

Inequality of wealth among different classes of people is one of the most prevalent forms of injustice in the modern world and, coincidentally, one of the most difficult to alleviate. Both Rousseau and Marx argued that the original departure from a primitive communal society, where all property was shared, to one in which men could claim individual right to natural resources is what facilitated this modern inequality by allowing certain individuals to attain more resources and the goods they produce than necessary for survival, and through these more social power, or capital, than others. To Marx, this original modest inequality was perpetuated and increased throughout the centuries in various forms, and was most dramatically exacerbated by the Industrial Revolution, which allowed those with power over the means of mass production to generate power over all those without it, consequently dividing society’s classes into the ruling bourgeoisie and the enslaved proletariat, who labor for the bourgeoisie as a means of sustenance and have no other means of self-improvement or class ascension. By rendering all of society’s members dependent on capital, which the majority have very little or none of, Marx argues that “In bourgeois society capital is independent and has individuality, while the living person is dependent and has no individuality” (Marx and Engels 24). Communism, as outlined by Marx and Engels in The Communist Manifesto, is a direct response to this unjust system and the division it inevitably creates, which seeks to eliminate the possibility of uneven distributions of wealth by abolishing private property and instead placing all existing property in the hands of the common people, via the state, rather than the individual. In this way, it can be argued that society is brought closer to justice because the Earth’s common resources are provided equally for all men to utilize as they need, rather than being centralized in the hands of the few and used to exploit those who without them. In this way, individuals can attain a comfortable lifestyle and social respect through genuine labor and merit, rather than by chance or previous family history, as in capitalistic society. The North Korean anti-U.S. propaganda above echoes this communist view of justice by depicting North Korea, presumably an ideal symbol of communism, ready to fight against U.S. imperialism, which can be viewed as the result of capitalism and the inequality it brings extended to a global scale. In a more Marxist context, the image sees North Korea as a proletariat class fighting against the inequality enabled by the ruling American imperialists and the capitalist ideals they promote, a reflection of the proletariat liberation against the bourgeoisie envisioned by Marx. Although communism as implemented in North Korea is fundamentally different than the system outlined by Marx, the ideals behind the concept of communism which influenced North Korea’s development nonetheless represent Marx’s theories on how to bring justice to the modern world and the inequality that has been bred from its social conventions, namely, private property. 

Lai, Lawrence. "North Korean Propaganda Posters." ABC News. ABC News Network, 22 Dec. 2011. Web. 11 June 2017.

[justinbasunga]

This political cartoon demonstrates the evil and inequality that is derived from the human inventions of property, as seen through a 21st century Western capitalistic perspective: without the greed and desire for material wealth that societies ingrain in the minds of citizens, the man on top would not care to acquire more property despite already having more necessary survival advantages than all of his fellow humans on the planet. This theme is reflected repeatedly in Rousseau’s Discourse on Inequality, and especially when he concludes, “It follows from this description that inequality, being almost non-existent in the state of nature, derives its strength and growth from the development of our faculties and the progress of the human mind...” (Rousseau 85). The wall is symbolic of the fashions in which the rich attempt to bar others from their riches and take for themselves what nature provides commonly to all life, that is to say, create formal laws and legal systems that allow the wealthiest men to maintain their wealth. This is again reflected by Rousseau in the same quote above, when he concludes that inequality “...eventually becomes stable and legitimate through the institution of property and laws” (Rousseau 85). Furthermore, by representing the entirety of the human population on one shared planet, the cartoon emphasizes that the concept of property in society inherently forces all men against one another by indicating that all must compete for commonly provided resources, thus making life itself a constant competition; as Rousseau states, “I would observe how this universal desire for reputation, honours, and privilege, which consumes us all...I would show how it excites and multiplies passions, and how, in making all men competitors, rivals, or rather enemies, it cause every day failures and successes and catastrophes of every kind by having so many aspirants compete in the same contest” (Rousseau 80). In laying individual claim on Earth’s natural resources and creating this competition, society enables the most greedy of men to take far more than the portion allotted to them by natural right by stealing from the portions of others and directly preventing them from their share of pleasures, creating extreme inequality and injustice. Although the cartoon explicitly mentions only wealth and depicts property, these inequalities can be assumed to exist in all possible forms, for Rousseau claims that of the inequalities, wealth is “...the last of them to which they can all be reduced in the end, for since wealth is the most immediately useful to well-being and the easiest to transmit, it can readily buy all the rest...” (Rousseau 80). Bringing all of these ideas together, it can be concluded that the human convention of individual property in society has historically led to inequality and hence injustice since its birth in the minds of men, and has continued these effects into the 21st century’s capitalistic world, in which it is manifested and depicted in this cartoon through an extremely small portion of men controlling the vast majority of the Earth’s naturally allotted portions of resources. This represents the most striking injustice in the modern world as it prevents half of the population from enjoying the natural wealth that should be enjoyed by all equally, and this detriment to most leads to the benefit of the few who enjoy far more than any one man should. 

Wuerker, M. (2015, October 15). Political Cartoons and Humor from POLITICO's Matt Wuerker. Retrieved June 02, 2017, from http://www.politico.com/wuerker/

[justinbasunga]

This famous painting by Eugène Delacroix depicts a scene from the French Revolution, a long series of conflicts in French history that ultimately lead to the abolishment of the French monarchy and feudal system in favor of the establishment of a republic. The French Revolution and the revolutionaries’ perceptions of how it brought France closer to justice can be examined through comparison to Plato’s proposed definitions of justice in Books 1 and 2 of Republic. Polemarchus first defines justice as simply “to give to each what is owed to him”, turning justice into what is essentially a system of repaying debts. In view of the French monarchy prior to the revolution and the abusive ways in which in treated its people, it can be argued that justice in this definition was executed fairly. As people living under any form of government, there exists an inherent social contract in which the people obey the government in return for their needs being met and their best interests looked for. French monarchs prior to the Revolution failed to do this and instead looked out for themselves, failing to give the people the economic and social leadership owed to them while conversely taking more power and luxuries than were owed to themselves. In view of this, the French people engaging in a bloody revolt to take back the power they had entrusted to the abusive government, power which was theirs originally, so that a new form of government may give them the leadership they deserve and had been neglected, is entirely just. After further discussion in Republic, Thrasymachus offers the definition that justice is no more than “what is advantageous to the stronger”, since the stronger party is the one who creates the ruling system that teaches what is just. In view of this definition too, then, France was brought closer to justice through the Revolution. Since the monarchs were not sufficiently powerful to suppress the people’s revolt, they were no longer “the stronger” and thus, by Thrasymachus’ logic, what was advantageous to them was no longer advantageous to the people as a whole. In revolting and overthrowing the government, the people proved that they were stronger, thus what was advantageous to the people became what was just, leading to a system which was more focused on equality and individualism than nobility and birthrights. Finally, though he offers no definition, Glaucon notes that for the individual, committing injustice with no punishment is ideal while suffering injustice with no compensation is the worst possible outcome. Thus, justice is a sort of halfway point, where one is forced neither to commit nor to endure injustice. By establishing a republic in favor of a monarchy through the French Revolution, the people established a system in which no one person could easily abuse power and commit injustice, nor could one group be unspoken for and thus forced to endure injustice. Thus, in Glaucon’s view as well, the French Revolution allowed France to approach a state which was more just than before.

"Eugene Delacroix Liberty Leading the People (28th July 1830) 1830 Reproduction | 1st Art Gallery." Oil Painting Reproductions from 1st Art Gallery. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 May 2017.

[justinbasunga]

This 18th-century limestone statue depicts Lady Justice, an adaptation of the Roman goddess Justitia, who personifies justice and natural law. The three symbols included in her traditional likeness - the sword, the blindfold, and the scales - are essential because they represent the inherent connections between power, impartiality, and objective means of judgement in the ideal execution of justice. All three of these factors play into The Revisionaries and the means by which the opposing parties attempt to enact their vision of justice with regards to the state’s education policies. Power is most apparent and arguably the most important of the three, as power is needed to enforce any version of justice against the will of the offending individual. In The Revisionaries, power is held predominantly by a select few people - those elected to the State Board - who ultimately craft and vote on legislation, and thus it is only from a relatively small pool of ideologies and perceptions of justice that state wide legislation is derived. With power rested in the hands of the few, the next element of justice, impartiality, is essential because without an objective view on policies and their future impacts, people with power may be tempted to implement their own subjective opinions as binding law, or to steer policy in a direction that benefits themselves. This is most evident in the struggle between the creationist conservatives and the scientific community of the liberal left in determining what should be included in the schools’ textbooks, as even minor omissions or additions to information about evolution can lead students to different understandings of the material and consequently to different ideologies regarding related issues. The third element of idealized justice is directly tied to the second, because an impartial gaze is irrelevant if the tools used to measure the item in question are skewed themselves. It is this element, an objective means of judgment, whose absence is most responsible for the struggles observed in the documentary, because objective science as constructed by humans is largely inapplicable to the notion of an omnipotent and omnipresent deity who can bend the natural laws of the universe at will and thus elude human detection indefinitely. The science developed by mankind and the all-powerful figures of creationist beliefs are on entirely different scales; therefore, no parties in the documentary can definitively say what is the precise origin of life, nor which system of beliefs is correct to teach as fact to future generations. Because of this limiting factor, ideal justice in the Texas educational system can only be executed to an extent, and is further deterred by the personal beliefs and opinions held by the Board members in power.

Malta u l-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja tal-Unjoni Ewropea (PDF) (in Maltese). Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. 2014. ISBN 978-92-829-1733-6