What is Justice?

   From page 98 of the draft of Annals of an Empire:       

            A smoke trail was all that remained of the other ship Pharsalus had destroyed earlier.

            The cheer of battle-hungry soldiers went up from the bridge, but Marcus was lost in thought.

            “Berthier, a word.” And he motioned to the exit.

            Only when in his office, did Marcus speak again. “Chairman Tyke was the one who informed me of the insurrection on this planet.” He paced the office. “Obviously he was correct that something was happening here, but I’m not sure either of us understand what exactly it was. What do you think we just witnessed, was it rebellion?

            “No.” Was the terse reply.

            “Neither do I. That’s the problem. Something else was happening here, and exactly what it is eludes me.” He clicked a pen on the table in frustration. “Was it a diversion? Some kind of suicide pact?”

            “I’m afraid it’s impossible to determine without more data, sir.”

            “Indeed.” Marcus acceded. He paused. “Another thing, Berthier…”

            “Yes, Commander?” He still stood at attention.

            “I know you don’t approve of my methods, and you disagree with my handling of the situation.” Marcus waited for a response, but Berthier remained at attention. “You may speak freely, Berthier. As my XO I want to reach a level of understanding with you.”

            “Very good, sir.”

            “You joined the crew of Cannae about what, nine months ago?”

            “Yes sir, after six I was transferred here as your XO.” Berthier replied.

            Marcus nodded, “Did Captain Antonius tell you why you were being transferred?”

            “No, sir.”

            Marcus sat down behind his desk and motioned for Berthier to do the same, “It was because I noticed the way you managed your crew. You are efficient and effective. Your men look up to you and respect your decisions. The XO position requires someone I can rely on and trust. I felt you were a perfect replacement for the job.”

            “Thank you, sir.”

            “Which is why I respect what you have to say.” Marcus tried to make himself look relaxed, which was difficult in his chair which did not recline. “So please, tell me what’s on your mind.”

            “I don’t like it, sir.” Berthier’s voice was level. “In the Legionnaire Directive it states we are to uphold and enforce the values of the Empire and establish its order throughout the galaxy. I didn’t see any of that today.”

            Marcus nodded. “What are imperial values? Berthier?”

            “Pardon?”

            “You mentioned your duty as an Imperial Legionnaire is to uphold Imperial values. Well, what are those values?” It was a probing question, but also one Marcus had been wondering himself, so he was curious what Berthier’s answer would be.

            “The Directive doesn’t specify.”

            “Correct. But in your opinion?”

            “In my opinion? They would be liberty, equality, and fraternity. Definitely the virtues of the gods, and strength and justice.”

            “So, a nebulous grouping of all things good and praiseworthy?”

            “It would seem so.” Berthier nodded.

            “But why justice?” Marcus asked.

            “A modern society is built on justice. Without it, everything would be chaos.”

“I agree, but surely justice isn’t unique to the empire? I assume there is some form of justice in the free cities, and in the Republic.”

            “Well… yes, but I wouldn’t count being thrown into fighting pits and tortured by pirates as just.”

            “Why not? Justice is just punishing someone for a crime.”

            “I wouldn’t say that, sir. You would need laws in order to have crime. Those remote colonies don’t have any laws. Their punishments are random and arbitrary. Justice is the natural consequence of your actions, like a dropped ball will inevitably hit the floor.” Berthier paused, taking a breath before continuing. “The evil tortures in those places are above and beyond what the people deserve, justice doesn’t call for that.”

            “So, the death sentence is not just for petty theft?”

            “Right.”

            “And neither is a slap on the wrist for murder?”

            “I would have to agree, sir.”

            “But who decides what is an appropriate punishment?”

            Berthier thought for a moment, “I would say the government decides, which it does. But then you would ask by what authority they assign such punishments. And I would respond: the authority that there is nobody to argue with them.”

            “I knew you were smart for a reason.” Marcus couldn’t help a laugh. “We agree, then, that two different cultures could have two very different punishments for the same crime, and both are considered just.”

            Berthier thought for a moment, “I suppose that’s true.”

            Marcus nodded, “So justice isn’t really a specific law, or punishment for crime?”

            “No.” Berthier agreed. “I would have to agree with your implication that it’s simply the natural consequence of action. The form of justice depends on your situation.”

            “Well said!” Marcus was enjoying himself and it came out in his voice. “What is the natural consequence for murder, rebellion, and attacking imperial forces within the empire?”

            Berthier was silent for a moment. “Death.” He said.

            “So, using your own definition, was justice served today?”

            Berthier frowned, “You’re turning my words on me, sir.”

            “I’m an Imperial Commander, it’s my job to turn my enemies on each other.” That drew a smile from him, before Marcus continued. “According to The Directive which you quoted earlier, part of my responsibility is to make sure justice is served, no matter the consequence.”

            “No matter the consequence…” Berthier repeated almost whispering.

            “I don’t expect you to like it, Berthier. Indeed, I want to you speak out when you have something to say. As long as it’s not in front of the crew, I need your input, and your counsel. But I also need you to understand that consequences are something I deal with after I have served justice.”

            “Understood, sir.”

            “Thank you, XO. Inform the bridge to descend to bombard range, the facilities on the surface have been compromised. Proceed with the bombardment of insurrection strongholds.”

            Berthier stood and turned to the door. “Very good, sir.”

Hitler Is More Alive Today Than Ever Before

If an alien came to earth and we gave them a day to learn about our culture through the internet, they could not be faulted if they thought that Hitler was the most influential person in all of history, and somehow lived all these years to 2018.



Have you heard of Godwin's Law?

It is an infamous adage, coined by Mike Godwin in 1990 that says: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Hitler approaches 1"

Essentially what this means is, the longer we argue about a subject, it becomes more and more likely that someone, or something is going to be compared to Hitler in some way.

This was back in 1990! The internet was barely an infant child at this time, taking its first steps with the help of Yahoo.com and AOL! How much more true must it be today? I wonder if someone hasn't already determined a mathematical solution for how quickly the comparison happens, or how often it happens on a daily basis.

Everybody does it.

Whether they're joking or being completely serious. Whether they mean it as a compliment, an insult, or a call to action.

It's the universal exclamation point at the end of every failed debate and signals the conclusion of any rational thought.

What I'm trying to say, is that using Hitler as a comparison or a debate point in any situation is wrong. Most of the time it's going to be misleading and inflammatory, (if that's the news organization's goal, then you need a new source of news). Or it's going to rally those despicable humans who idolize the mass murderer.

Both of those scenarios seem less-than-ideal to me.

If you're an intelligent person, with a valid position, and a drive to convince others, you should be able to share that position without resorting to Hitler in any fashion.

Until the person you're calling Hitler has:

-Personally issued an order to kill millions of certain minority groups.

-Personally invaded dozens of countries, integrating them into a "Fatherland" after promising he/she would not.

-Organized violent riots throughout the country, destroying business, and killing (or threatening to kill) any news organizations who opposed their viewpoint.

-Rallied the poor in their country and blamed all their country's woes and problems on the rich business owners, confiscated their property and drove them out of the country, giving all their possessions to the native countrymen.

Your "insult" means nothing.

All it really does is highlight your inability to form a defensible position around your idea and muster a coherent argument. It shows that your whole position rests on the opposition of someone you don't like. It shows that you either don't have a position of your own, or don't understand your position enough to argue its valid points. It shows that you let your emotions control what you say and do, rather than thoughtful research and thinking.


What you're really saying is, "This guy is bad, in my opinion, so you should hate him because Hitler was bad too."

Essentially, running to "So-and-so is literally Hitler" is the modern political equivalent of "I know you are but what am I?"

Was William Wallace Good at Photoshop?

Could Ragnar Lothbrok hold his own in a rap battle? Was Cleopatra a talented billiards player? While these questions sound fantastic, or childish, the implications could teach us more about ourselves, and about our lives, than we first believe.

***

Well, was he?

It's a serious question. And I'm going out on a limb here, but I’m guessing most of you answered "no." Why?

What data do you have? Your supporting facts, your evidence for your position? Could you test your hypothesis? How did you arrive at your conclusion? Surely you performed repeatable tests, maybe sent out a survey.

The thing is: scientifically, you can't prove either way whether William Wallace was good at Photoshop. It's an untestable and unrepeatable hypothesis, so by definition our answer must be "we don’t know."

Therefore, we can't prove if Napoleon Bonaparte had skateboarding talent. Or if Julius Caesar had unrealized "sick rap skills" that were "fire."

What does this mean? Why is this question important?

Let's ignore the implication this question might have on scientific theory, technology or the human brain.

I want to focus on what this question implies regarding our fundamental perception of what "talent" is.

Across dictionaries, the definition of talent is some form of "natural aptitude or skill." It was also an ancient form of currency (and by extension has religious symbolism); we'll ignore that too.

Let's look at the word "natural."

How can you have a "natural" talent for something that is "unnatural"? Is it natural for us to curl our fingers over a keyboard and type? No, that's why it hurts if you do it too long. But people have a talent for that, apparently.

Let's get rid of it.

So, we can boil it down, and hopefully agree, on a definition similar to: "an aptitude or skill inherent in an individual."

What does this mean, assuming we all have interest, or skill, in at least one medium of artistic expression. In my mind, this means that a talent isn't necessarily being extremely proficient in one program or sport. Rather, it means that all of us have thousands of different skills, habits, ticks or thought processes, and the combinations of those skills make us more or less talented with certain things.

Think about it like you're building a car. With a budget of $10,000, what kind of car could you build? What parts would you focus on, what aspects would you sacrifice in favor of others? If you’re building a drag racer, you're going to focus on different things than if you're building a rally car.

The same is with your body and mind. When you were born, and during childhood, your body had a "budget" to keep in investing those precious developmental resources. As a result, you are a unique combination of billions of possibilities that make you more talented, more attracted and better with certain tasks than others.

The rest of your life, then, is a giant scavenger hunt. The "search for happiness" others talk about is simply the act of looking at your set of combinations, and matching them with jobs, hobbies or activities which match them, because those are the ones in which we'll enjoy most.

How's your scavenger hunt going?

(Originally posted on Thelatest.com: https://thelatest.com/tlt/6178)