Matthew 10:34 “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.”
Introduction and Jurisprudential Ambiguities
“Everything must be in its proper place. Everything must be balanced. Everything must be consistent. Everything must be equal.”
The preceding line likely strikes the reader as obsessive, demanding, and irrational; as if it comes from the mouth of a control freak. Yet in this is the sin qua non of the desire for Equality. I.e., Justice is achieved when Equality is achieved or Justice is Equality. If Justice is Equality, then what is Justice?
I think it will be best to begin exploring this extremely abstract concept by looking very briefly at the Preamble of the US Constitution.
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility…”
Here we can see that the delegates at the Constitutional Convention, “the People” the text references, to manifest a better and more complete federation, seek to establish Justice (our keyword), which is followed by Tranquility, or the absence of Chaos or Disorder. The next several clauses, while relevant to how they seek to achieve Justice and Peace, are not relevant for our proceeding discussion. Of relevance is the fact that Justice must occur before Tranquility or Peace is achieved; i.e., Justice is known by the sensation of Tranquility or the absence of Chaos. Of great significance is the fact that when the Constitution or the Preamble reference Justice, they never associate the term with Equality; neither associate the term with a desire for balance, only Tranquility or the absence of Chaos. In other words, Justice is not a measurable state, a state that can be quantified, constrained by a strict set of facts or a definition. It is an abstract, qualitative state, best grasped through the sense of peace one has.
To further expand on this concept, I would like to present a very basic example of how a jury or judge knows when someone is guilty of a crime, beyond a reasonable doubt. Let us say that A murdered B. A is found, arrested, arraigned, charged with the murder, given a defense attorney, brought before a judge and jury, and tried for murder. Barring some steps, after all the facts are presented to the judge and jury, the jury is sent to deliberate on whether A has, beyond a reasonable doubt, murdered B. But what is beyond a reasonable doubt?
First, let us say the judge says to the jury that “beyond a reasonable doubt is greater than 51%.” Based on prior rulings, McCullough v. State, State v. DEIVECCHIO, Milligan v. State, A’s case may be thrown out on account of the fact that, by providing the jury a number, the judge may have confused the jury, allowing the defendant to claim a mistrial. At issue is the meaning and quantification of “beyond a reasonable doubt.” In accordance with the 14th Amendment, a jury must find a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. By reasonable doubt, the court has decided that they mean “a subjective state of near certitude of guilt of the accused”, Petrocelli v. State, Jackson v. Virginia. The impetus for keeping “beyond reasonable doubt” ambiguous is to provide flexibility to those trying a case. In their 2000 paper, Stoffelmayr and Diamond express that this need for flexibility and the room it provides for error is a “virtue worth fostering” so that those trying a case may “adjust the stringency of the standard to reflect the severity of the offense.”
The point of this short tangent on “reasonable doubt” was to highlight that, in order to achieve Justice, the courts have decided to side-step a precise, absolute, and perfect order and instead have opted for a qualitative, subjective standard. I.e., Justice is not a state that can be observed and measured like some statistic but rather is a qualitative state, that feeling of Tranquility alluded to earlier. When the jury are convinced of the guilt or innocence of the accused, and they present their findings to the judge, a sense of peace or tranquility ought to befall them upon delivering their verdict, for they have procured justice.
The Federalist Papers, Justice and Equality, Tyranny and Pure Democracy, and Liberty
Importantly, the proponents of the US’s Federal Constitution recognized that their society needed to balance Justice with Liberty. In Federalist Paper 10, Madison writes:
“Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an ailment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.” (Madison, 1787)
In the same paper, on Pure Democracy, Madison also writes:
“A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government [pure democracy] itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized [pure democracy], have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions. [italics added].” (Madison, 1787)
Madison’s response to the problem posed by a pure democracy is a representative democracy made up of two legislative bodies, one of the Union, the other of any State. In turn, he uses Liberty’s tendency to manifest faction against itself by using faction to quell factions who are corrupt, sinister, prejudice, or temperamental. He writes:
“The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States. A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the Confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils against any danger from that source. A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such malady is more like to taint a particular county or district, than an entire state.” (Madison, 1787)
Madison, at least, is then not for Equality but rather emphasizes division, factiousness, and uses factiousness against itself to generate harmony, providing stability and security. Equality then does not lead to stability and security in Madison’s eyes. Instead, Liberty and Factiousness, the latter of which must be set against itself to procure a harmonious flame, lead to security and stability. Following Madison’s argument, one of the Founding Fathers of the United States, if there is neither security or stability, then you can be sure that Liberty and factiousness have been suppressed and that an emphasis has been placed on Equality.
As you read that last sentence, you may have asked yourself, “But then how can the 5th and 14th Amendments promote equality under the law if we are not to emphasize equality?”. Just because we are not to emphasize equality does not mean we are not to seek equality under the law. More importantly, in our desire to achieve equality under the law, we are not seeking a quantifiable balance, but rather, it may be construed, we are seeking freedom from tyranny or the abuse of the law as a mechanism of power; i.e., we are emphasizing Liberty. Take for example Madison or Hamilton’s own words from Federalist Paper 51:
“[The] great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. The provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary positions.” (Madison, 1788)
Here we can see echoes of Madison’s original argument that for there to be security and stability, there had to have been Liberty or the promotion of Liberty over Equality. And by promoting Liberty, Madison promotes factiousness, which we here see, once again, keeps the interests of each man in check; “Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.” By a qualified connection between a numerically weaker and stronger party, the latter may be kept in check by the former through an absolute negation of the latter’s actions; yet the latter may, in turn, override (if it wills it so) the absolute negation of the former by its majority. Ambition checks ambition. By emphasizing Liberty, and thus factiousness, over Equality, and thus uniformity, it becomes very difficult for the majority to override the will of the minority. Madison or Hamilton explains further:
“It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure. There are but two methods of providing against this evil: the one by creating a will in the community independent of the majority that is, of the society itself; the other, by comprehending in the society so many separate descriptions of citizens as will render an unjust combination of a majority of the whole very improbable, if not impracticable… The second method will be exemplified in the federal republic of the United States. Whilst all authority in it will be derived from and dependent on the society, the society will be broken into so many parts, interests, and classes of citizens, that the rights of individuals or of the minority, will be in little danger from interested combinations of the majority. In a free government the security for civil rights must be the same as that for religious rights. It consists in the one case in the multiplicity of interest, and in the other in the multiplicity of sects. The degree of security in both cases will depend on the number of interests and sects; and this may be presumed to depend on the extent of country and number of people comprehended under the same government… Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until Liberty be lost in the pursuit. In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger; and as, in the latter state, even the stronger individuals are prompted, by the uncertainty of their condition, to submit to a government which may protect the weak as well as themselves; so, in the former state, will the more powerful factions or parties be gradually induced, by a like motive, to wish for a government which will protect all parties, the weaker as well as the more powerful.” (Madison, 1788)
To try to succinctly summarize what has been stated thus far: If there’s Liberty, then there’s security and stability; if there’s no security or stability, Liberty has been suppressed, Equality is being emphasized; Liberty leads to factiousness, factiousness leads to competing interests, competing interests keep each other in check, interests kept in check preserve civil and religious rights, a society that can preserve its members rights is a Just and Civil society, a Just and Civil society is a stable and secure society; where there is Liberty, there is Justice and Civility, there is Stability and Security. The contrapositive follows as such: If there is no stability or security, there is no Justice or Civility, the rights of the people are not being preserved, the interests of a majority or minority are not being kept in check, the interests of a majority or minority are overruling the minority or majority of the society respectively, there is a suppression of factiousness or too much uniformity, there is no Liberty, there’s an emphasis on Equality; if there is no stability or security, no Justice or Civility, there is no Liberty, there’s an emphasis on Equality. All of this follows from the words of Madison or Hamilton, who worked to construct the Constitution of the United States.
Now we must return to one of our original questions: how do we know when there’s Justice? We know there’s Justice when there’s stability and security (or Tranquility), and we can achieve Justice when we emphasize Liberty. If there isn’t stability or security (Tranquility), there likely isn’t Justice, but there is possibly an emphasis on Equality. In the eyes of Hamilton or Madison, two men who helped to shape the Constitution of the United States, if there’s Equality (pure democracy), there probably won’t be stability or security; Equality prevents factiousness, each faction keeps the interests of others in check, interests kept in check promote civil and religious rights, a society that promotes civil and religious rights is a civil and just society, and a civil and just society is a stable and secure society; ergo, a society that emphasizes Equality prevents civility or justice and thus stability or security. The goal of the government is Justice, or stability and security, and thus the government’s goal is to emphasize Liberty not Equality. If the government emphasized Equality, it would be preventing factiousness; by preventing factiousness, it prevents the interests of either a minority or majority from being kept in check; by not keeping the interests of a minority or majority in check, the government threatens religious or civil rights; where civil or religious rights are threatened, there is a threat against justice or civility, and where justice or civility are threatened, there is stability or security threatened, there is the peace (or tranquility) threatened; when the government emphasizes Equality, it threatens either peace, or security. When peace or security are threatened, Justice is threatened; when the government emphasizes Equality, it threatens peace or security, it threatens Justice; when the government emphasizes Equality, it threatens Justice; it prevents Justice. If there’s Peace, there’s Justice, and if there’s no Justice, there’s no Peace, therefore Peace cannot exist without Justice, nor can Justice exist without Peace. If there’s Equality, there’s no Justice, there’s no peace. If there’s Peace, there’s Justice, there’s Liberty, there’s no Equality. Justice is not Equality. Liberty and Equality are mutually exclusive goals.
But what do we mean by Liberty? Liberty is essentially freedom from the Sovereign. But who is the Sovereign? The Sovereign is at least one of two entities: The Anarchic Tyrant or the Syndicalist Prince, the latter of which asserts and exerts his will through the state (he is deficient in Liberty), and the former of which asserts and exerts his will through his natural prowess (he excessively exemplifies Liberty). Both are the polar opposites of each other. The Anarchic Tyrant abuses his power without any help from the state, a collection of organized individuals, while the Syndicalist Prince is given power to ensure the body of organized individuals are ensured their share of the states’ take; the former binds the state to his will, the latter’s will must remain the state’s for him to preserve his power. In neither instance are religious or civil rights considered; the stability and security of any people are at least secondary to the Anarchic Tyrant’s or Syndicalist Prince’s desires. Any group of people under the Anarchic Tyrant or Syndicalist Prince are subordinate to their will, their desires, or the desire of the state; all must conform to the will of the Anarchic Tyrant or Syndicalist Prince; under either they are equalized, forced to conform; and when the people are forced into conformity, factiousness is prevented, any given fraction cannot keep any other in check, civil or religious rights are denied, and thus justice and peace are denied or, more accurately, prevented. If the goal of government is Justice and Peace, then no government can properly function while headed by an Anarchic Tyrant or Syndicalist Prince because the aim of the government cannot be achieved; the government cannot achieve Justice or Peace.
For many, Liberty is best practiced in accordance with reason, yet man’s reason is noticeably flawed. Madison even makes note of this in Federalist Paper 10:
“As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach themselves.” (Madison, 1787)
In short, as both Hume and Haidt note, man is a slave or servant to his passions, his sins. Thus, he must subordinate his passions to himself, virtuously habituate himself, to truly be liberated; he must sacrifice himself to himself to truly know freedom. This kind of Liberty, of which I cannot see any clearer alternative, is a distinctly Biblical kind of Liberty. John 8:34 makes this clear, “Jesus answered them, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.”; whoever lets his passions rule him, is not virtuous. Psalms 119:45 makes this even clear, “And I will walk at liberty; for I seek thy precepts. [italics added].” To free oneself from their passions, from their sins, one must bind themselves to the virtue of God, and seek the precepts of God. James 1:25 makes this point for me, as well, “But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.” But what is the Virtue of God, and where can we find the precepts of God? John 8:31-32 answers, “Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” It is not work, ritual, or the law, at least, that set men free from their passions, from sin, but truth; “truth shall make you free.” Of course, this opens up another problem: What is Truth? I think this question can be answered only through a neuroscientific framework: truth is an emergent property of a semantic schema’s (or overlapping semantic schemas’) relationship to the real world, which naturally manifest themselves through interaction with the world via procedure (exploratory play derived from observation and proto-hypotheses) from our cytoarchitectonics, which draw upon concepts in semantic and procedural form from memory (previous experiences), and is thus a product of the world and our interactions with the world (Striegel, 2021). Truth is not really personal, it is obviously not subjective, yet it is not clearly objective either; there is something qualitative about it; it is the result of one’s reciprocal interactions with the very matter they inquire about, and by inquiring and interacting with it, they change themselves and their knowledge of the truth without changing the thing being interacted with and inquired about itself. Thus, Liberty is achieved through virtue; virtue is gained through habituating oneself to the precepts of God, and the precepts of God are known and knowable by the fact that they are true, and the truth is gained by interacting with God; Liberty is achieved through Truth and God.
Liberty, as far as I can see, is only achievable through this Biblical lens, and thus so to is Justice and Peace. If I am wrong, I would appreciate being shown how I am wrong, but I do not see how Islam, for example, can claim to be capable of advocating for Liberty. Nor can I see how Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism, or Sikhism can genuinely advocate for Liberty through Moksha; Liberty, as it is defined Biblically does not seem to be advocating for a release from worldly things, but a proper ordering of things so one may live well; it is an aspect of a kind of Virtue ethic that is to be lived in this world, not the end-goal of an ascetic life that leads to release from this world. In other words, a people who abide by Liberty, and overcome themselves (sacrifice themselves to themselves for themselves), and lead an ethical, truthful, and virtuous life, as such a life would be defined Biblically, will likely be the inheritors of the world Madison and Hamilton intended to create. If America’s goal is Justice, these will be its inheritors; if it is Equality, America shall not be their home.
Conclusions
I started this exploration of Equality and Justice by expressing the idea, based on the convention that things be made equal or equitable, that Equality is Justice. Yet I believe I have clearly shown that this was not the intent of the founders of the Constitution of the United States, it is not supported by our understanding of Liberty as political scientists have come to know the concept, nor is it supported Biblically. A government can either seek Justice or Equality but not both. By seeking the former, it also seeks peace; by seeking the latter, it also seeks conformity. There can be no peace if there’s conformity, nor Justice, as the two must exist together; where the one does not exist neither can the other. Ergo, to restate what has already been stated, Equality is not Liberty. Where Equality is the goal, Justice and Peace cannot exist.
Returning to our line from the beginning of this essay:
“Everything must be in its proper place. Everything must be balanced. Everything must be consistent. Everything must be equal.”
Here we can see that these are not merely the words of a control freak. They are the words of the tyrant, and the syndicalist prince, both of whom seek your conformity, your submission, your obedience, and in so doing, prevent peace, stability, and security. What’s worst of all, they do so, not for the sake of justice, but equality or conformity, through which they only seek self-enrichment. This peace I speak of cannot be quantified either. Like the concept of “beyond a reasonable doubt,” to quantify such an end goal does it injustice; it deprives it of the very flexibility that ensures its ability to pervade all facets of our life; it forces it into a box that is its very antithesis; the flame is not kept by being suffocated but by being given the fuel that’s necessary to ensure its continuance. If we wish to keep the Flame of Justice alive, we should fuel it with Liberty, which does not produce unity or conformity but instead produces factiousness; may the best faction win out. In so doing, we should shine a light of truth on the horrors of the Tyrant and Prince, on the horrors of those who demand conformity for their personal enrichment.
Bibliography:
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 61 L. Ed. 2d 560 (1979).
Madison, J., 1787. The federalist no. 10. November, 22(1787), pp.1787-88.
Madison, J., 1788. The Federalist Papers, Nos. 10, 51. New York.
MatTehCat (Striegel). 2021. Immortal Truth: A Neuroscientific Critique of Postmodernism. Publish0x.com. available at: https://www.publish0x.com/mattehcats-blogs/immortal-truth-a-neuroscientific-critique-of-postmodernism-xrnelzj
MatTehCat (Striegel). 2021. The Story of Man: A Paradigmatic Model of Narrative based on Neuroscientific Literature. Publish0x.com. available at: https://www.publish0x.com/mattehcats-blogs/the-story-of-man-a-paradigmatic-model-of-narrative-based-on-xmmodwj
McCullough v. State, 657 P.2d 1157, 99 Nev. 72 (1983).
Milligan v. State, 708 P.2d 289, 101 Nev. 627 (1985).
Petrocelli v. State, 692 P.2d 503, 101 Nev. 46 (1985).
Politicalscience. 2018. Definition of Liberty and Meaning. Politicalsciencereview.com. available at: https://www.politicalscienceview.com/liberty-definition-and-meaning/
State v. DEIVECCHIO, 191 Conn. 412, 464 A.2d 813 (1983).
Stoffelmayr, E. and Diamond, S.S., 2000. The conflict between precision and flexibility in explaining" beyond a reasonable doubt". Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 6(3), p.769.
