Liberal or Conservative?

There were two differing theories about how the retina processed color light in the eye. One said the eye processed in three distinct colors, red, green, and blue, as the trichromatic theory, and the other said that the eye processed three pairs of opposing colors, red-green, blue-yellow, and black-white, as the opponent-process theory. Each theory was well-supported, and discussion among psychologists got a bit heated as sides were chosen. Eventually somebody discovered how color vision actually worked: both theories were right, and wrong. As it turns out, each theory describes different layers of cells in the retina, and both layers work together to produce color vision.

There is definitely a great political divide at the moment. Conservatives and liberals have their platforms, and each side believes they are right. Each side will have valid arguments on any given issue, so there must be some truth there. Perhaps both sides are right and wrong together, and the correct solution to these problems is simply for each to function at different layers of society, and both are intended to work together to produce a great world. However, each needs to remain within its jurisdiction or you will have chaos.

Mercy and Justice

There is an old debate about the ideas of "mercy" and "justice". The traditional example has a man who has borrowed an irresponsible amount of money, and is arrested when he is unable to pay it back, according to the justice of the contract the man agreed to. The man pleads for mercy, so that he may have time to repay what he owes. The lender argues that he will not allow the one-sided nature of mercy to rob justice. The man and the lender debate the virtues of mercy versus justice until the man's friend comes and offers to act as a mediator, paying the man's debt and creating merciful terms he can pay. The demands of justice were satisfied and the lender went his way. Both justice and mercy were allowed to exist, but only when there was a mediator.

Many debates between liberal verses conservative policies can boil down to an argument of mercy verses justice: Immigration - let everyone in or protect our borders, Economy - money for all or incentivize entreprenuership, Race - affirmative action or equal opportunity, Healthcare - free for all or competitive market, etc. In each issue there is the plea from one side to have mercy on those who cannot abide by the law, and the demands from the other side that society cannot function if the law is merciful. Both are right, but you cannot have justice if you allow it to be robbed by mercy. Because of fairness.

... and Fairness

The whole point of "justice" and justice in the government is to create a system of fairness. I'm not talking about "fair" in the words of the 7-year-old who thinks "fair" means "what makes me happy", but in the actual meaning. Real "fair" is impartial, and affects everybody equally, regardless of circumstances, creeds, races, genders, etc. The laws of physics are absolutely fair, for example; gravity doesn't play favorites or have mercy on certain groups when they hit the scales. The ideal system of justice strives to be fair; the scales of justice likewise must be balanced fairly for all.

But what about fairness and mercy? Mercy is inherently unfair. Somebody may receive a pardon even though their actions deserve consequences. This is not fair. And so you can see that, logically speaking, you cannot have true fairness in a system that standardizes mercy. It's not the government's job to be partial and unfair to bestow mercy upon somebody who broke the law, neither is it their job to play favorites. It's the government's job to uphold the law, which is there to protect the innocent citizens in its jurisdiction.

Two wrongs don't make a right

It is often argued that the government should attempt to correct unfairness created by an individual's circumstances. You cannot try to use unfairness in one area to balance the unfairness in another. Why? Because everybody values things differently. For example, in affirmative action, a minority is given extra opportunity to make up for the lack of privelage they were born into, and this comes at the cost of the majority's opportunity. This approach assumes the opportunity exchanges with the privelage at a 1:1 ratio for everybody impacted. But as we can see from the heated debate about it, that is not the case. There will be members of the majority who lack privelege and members of the minority who have ample opportunity. Many people believe the government is being unfair when it is merciful. That's because logically, it is.

But both can exist within society in a way where mercy does not rob justice, where unfairness does not have to be used to try to create fairness. Like the example of theories of the eye, both ideologies can exist together in a way that functions beautifully. Recall the third man in the classic example, the mediator. As individuals we all play an important role in society.

Societal Layers

There are many more layers in society than just the government, and different ideologies apply at different levels. Some examples may be:

1. The individual
2. The family
3. The community
4. The country
5. The world

There can be more than this, but think of these as different jurisdictions, with their own governing bodies. Let's assign some:

1. The individual - You rule
2. The family - The parents rule
3. The community - The local government rules
4. The country - The federal government rules
5. The world - Still working on it... but it is trending toward the combined voices of the internet

Within each layer of society, a different governing body must be accountable for its actions and responsibilities. But importantly, they must be accountable to those in their jurisdiction: a parent should not starve their children so they can feed someone else's, a city should not pardon criminals who will then harm its citizens, and the country should not allow their money and weapons to fall into the hands of same groups that pledge to destroy it.

Where is mercy? Where is justice?

Generally speaking, the best place for mercy is at the lower levels of society, while the best places for justice are at the higher levels of society. If the government acts in a completely just way, upholding the law fairly for all people in its jurisdiction, that does not take away our ability as individuals and families to start or donate to charities, drives, or foundations for helping people who would struggle in a more just society. From my personal experience, when the government is more just (e.g. lowering taxes with less welfare) that makes people far more able and willing to be merciful (e.g. donating to charities, or forgiving civil offenses).

However, if a government practices mercy, that does take away from the justice meted out by the government. If a judge goes easy on the criminal there is still a victim who has not had restitution, and potentially future victims as well. Is it now the job of the victim to seek the justice that was denied them? Do they now need a gofundme to help pay excess fees, or a vigilante to keep their neighborhood safe? This shouldn't have to be their job, and if it comes to that point it shows a failing at a higher level.

For fun, let's mix them up a bit.

Justice at the individual level

This is straight up vigilantism. As entertaining as a vigilante is on the big screen, real life vigilantes are sketchy at best. The lack of due process can quickly turn justice into murder.

Mercy at the community level

Let's say a semi truck driver hits somebody, and miraculously the victim survives. The law says the semi truck driver should have their professional license suspended (in addition to paying damages), but this would leave the driver without a source of income. If the judge is merciful, they have just let someone back behind the wheel of a semi who has a track record of poor driving. The only reason the victim was not killed was pure luck, and the driver is unlikely to be that lucky again. This act of mercy may have just killed someone, and the government would have failed to protect its citizens.

Conclusion

Both liberal and conservative policies (which echo mercy and justice) must be implemented at the correct levels of society, and both work together to create something great. Mercy should not be allowed to rob justice, and it is instead the responsibility of individuals and families to practice mercy at the lower levels of society. As such, the liberal policies that attempt to codify mercy into law are inherently unfair, and should not be implemented at a government level, while conservative policies more correctly reflect justice and fairness for all, which should be upheld at the government levels of society.

Use agreement: This site is merely a distillation of information, I make no claims as to its accuracy. Use it at your own risk. By using this site you agree that I am not liabile for any of your action or inaction in connection to using this website. I reserve the right to change this agreement at any time, for any reason, without notifying you.

Privacy policy: This site collects simple, anonymous server request counts and anonymous voluntary survey data, which are not tied to you. This is solely to help me manage the site, and has no commercial or other purpose. No tracking or usage of cookies occurs. I reserve the right to change this policy at any time, for any reason, without notifying you.