Justice, and the rest

"...then in what sort of partnership is the just man a better partner than the harp-player, as in playing the harp the harp-player is certainly a better partner than the just man?

In a money partnership

Yes, but surely not in the use of money; for you do not want a just man to be your counselor in the purchase or sale of a horse; a man who is knowing about horses would be better for that, would he not?

Certainly.

And when you want to buy a ship, the shipwright or the pilot would be better?

True

Then what is the joint use of silver or gold in which the just man is to be preferred?

When you want a deposit to be kept safely.

You mean when money is not wanted, but allowed to lie?

Precisely.

That is to say, justice is useful when money is useless.

That, is the inference."

That conversation was from The Republic I, between Socrates and his friends.

I guess it would have been cool to be Greek. They aren't distracted from trying to define things.
Except when it comes to their Gods and stuff.

Socrates was a genius. In every sense of the word. A lot of the Greeks were smart, but this guy was just, WOW.

Back to the topic of Justice.

From what I understand, justice can be said to be useful when money is useless.
But that's just one point of view.
Since nothing is true, and everything is permitted, I shall try to understand a few other definitions.

If you were told that life is fair, you would most definitely look to the law and justice.
Because, logically speaking, you break the rules, you pay the price.

Let's break down the logic, just as Socrates and his friends did.
Two people, in a setting
person A and person B

Person A is a man of peace. Living his life without harming others. Presumably, person A is pious, and fully believes that life is fair, as in, do good, and good will be done unto you. As they With What Measure Ye Mete, It Shall Be Measured To You.
One day, Person B kills Person A's loved one(presumably unintended murder, Person B just wanted the cash).

Person B needs to be punish on the basis that murder is both a sin, and more importantly, against the law?



True


Person A lost a loved one, even though it was not his fault.

Presumably true. (not considering the butterfly effect,karma relating to past life, etc)

Person A is left without a loved one, and without compensation.

True

Without compensation, especially true, if the law was non-existent.

Also true.

So, in a way, the law serves as a form of compensation to Person A. Because without the law, or JUSTICE, Person A would have no compensation, since it is presumed that Person A would not harm Person B.

True.

1st conclusion, justice is a form of compensation to the powerless law abiding citizens.

That is inferred.

*************************************************************

Previously, I stated that the law was not born of a greater knowledge of what's right and what's wrong, but out of necessity.

That necessity is what we call 'the system'.

Saying the system works, or doesn't work is way too much.

It works because I get to use the internet on a PC(which works in ways I cannot yet understand).

Yet, I can also claim the system doesn't work because parts of Africa can't get a stable government.

The system, in itself is completely necessary, or has made itself so, through the ages of man.

From what I can understand, the system is a complex organization of individuals, groups, and companies that are unaware of how what they do or say effect the nature of man.

In other words, because there are 6 billion humans on the planet, and we're all part of one big society(unlike animals,that are unaware of the presence of their own species on the other side of the earth.), we don't really understand the importance of understanding.

I'm sick of analogies and misinterpreted definitions.

This post was long, and I hope it'll be enough to last whoever reads this crap to last you till my next.

Good bye.