Justice

Tags : None
  • Max Stirner stated in his seminal work ' The ego and his own' that " The State calls its own violence law, but that of the individual crime." In light of the fact that two of the charges upon which the leading Nazi's were tried at Nuremburg were crimes against humanity and the waging of aggressive and illegal war and the fact that the verdict on Saddam Hussein is due tomorrow, who should really be on trial here? Or is it as Helmut Goering said - victors justice.
    Porscha
      November 4, 2006 9:10 PM GMT
    0
  • A belated reply...

    I haven't read Max Sterner's work, but I can perhaps presume that he makes the argument that the violence of the state is condoned by a majority of the people of the state - that is, they agree to a set of rules and the punishments ensuing from contravention of said rules.

    This is the way a society works. There is no workable complete freedom. We must agree to restrictions so that we all can co-exist. Whether a society is just or not is a matter of opinion. That it is peacful would be a matter of fact.

    Justice is a word we use to mean that a certain protocol is used to administer law, due process if you will. If the protocol or process is not applied then however wrong the accused is, they cannot be judged. The cause of the accuser(s) is not just.

    So, I am of the opinion that most people would agree that the Nazi persecution of ethnic minorities during WWII was a crime, even one commiited by the state. In this case the state used fear to acquire tacit consent from its people. As for Saddam Hussein, I think there are similarities - gassing Kurd minorities, using fear to gain tacit consent. Was a protocol or process followed that gave the accuser(s) the right to judge? I cannot say. I'd need to study the transcripts.

    But you are right to quote Goering; history is written, and justice administered by the victor. Who else is left.

    In WWII, the good guys kindda won, in Gulf War II likewise. Time has shown that the Axis powers of WWII are now engaged and respectable members of the world community - as we see it. Will the same happen for Iraq? We are yet to see.

    Debbie
    A hug goes a long way
      December 14, 2007 9:30 PM GMT
    0
  • Thanks for reviving this thread, Debbie. I thought it was interesting, nobody else did. Maybe, I didn't put it across very well. The anarchism of the ego asserts that all is good that serves your interests and your interests alone. Hence a violent act committed by an individual is legitimate if it benefits that individual. The State behaves in a similar way whilst criminalising the individual for doing the same. The persecution of minorities can be justified, therefore, if it benefits the majority. Rousseau stated that the perfect society is one in which all people think the same, those who think differently should be executed for the sake of harmony. To do so would benefit everyone else. That is the restriction to which every individual citizen must abide, a workable freedom. This could be a blueprint for Nazi Germany or any other fascist dictatorship. People can live their own lives but must not have dissenting views. One People! One State! One Leader! Totally abhorrent to me but interesting because democracy, as we understand it, is a fairly recent innovation. Yet we accept it as the correct, proper and humane practise of politics; and democratic Governments are quite willing to use violence to preserve it and indeed to impose it on others who neither desire or understand it. In Iraq the people voted strictly upon tribal, ethnic and religious lines. We could just have easily apportioned the seats accordingly. In Russia they vote for a strongman, a new Tsar, a new Stalin.
    Iraq will not emerge as a western style democracy. Peace will only be maintained as long as occupation continues. It will probably factionalise and split apart. Much like the old Yugoslavia it can only be maintained as a viable and stable state by being under the control of a strong leader with the suitable levers of state oppression. Without this it can only have a dangerous and destabilising effect on an already volatile region. It is the great irony of toppling Saddam Hussein that he was possibly the lesser of two evils. It is also a great irony of history that the good guys always win.
    Porscha
      December 15, 2007 12:07 AM GMT
    0