Freedom, Equality, and Justice

In the Republic, Plato asks 'What is Justice?', and his method of answering is based on an analogy between a Just person and a Just society. His ultimate solution is thus question-beginning, because the definition of a 'Just' society pertains to relations between a member and the whole, so his presumption from the outset that there is an analogy between them is unacceptable. Furthermore, the untenability of the analogy as proposed becomes patent, with the discordance in the consequences that, on the one hand, a Just person is a fully Rational person, but on the other, most members of a Just society are incapable of full Rationality. A perhaps less convoluted definition of Justice can be derived from a consideration of the U. S. Constitution, which entails two main Principles, Freedom and Equality. The former can be defined as 'Each citizen can do as they please, so long as there is no interference with anyone else doing likewise.' The latter can be defined as 'The vote of one person counts no more than that of any other.' That they are conflicting Principles only occasionally becomes manifest, e. g. the debate over the limits of the role of wealth in the electoral process--the exercise of Free Speech vs. an undue influence on the choosing of leaders. The Constitution does seem to recognize its internal tension, by attempting to balance the embodiment of the Freedom Principle, i. e. the Executive branch, with that of the Equality Principle, i. e. the Legislative branch, via the functioning of a third branch, i. e. the Judiciary. However, the general bias of the Supreme Court to the Freedom Principle, e. g. classifying the spending of money as 'Free Speech', the classification of a Corporation as a 'Person', etc., not to mention its susceptibilty to being filled on the basis of political loyalty, reveals it as an ineffective balancer of the two Principles. Even two of the most respected thinkers of the past several decades are incapable of rising above the tension--Nozick's theory of Justice is derived from the Freedom Principle, while Rawl's is based on the Equality Principle. The shortcoming of each of these is that 'Justice' is 'the art of the balance between Freedom and Equality'. It is an Art, because there is no higher Principle that harmonizes them in the abstract, and it is one that can only be exercised in concrete cases. A Phronetocracy is a Just society, because the wisest leader is an Artist of Justice.