ChatGPT Q&A: What is “justice” and when does pursuit of “justice” become “INJUSTICE”?
EDITORIAL: The following was a ChatGPT interchange on the origins of legal justice conducted 6/28/23.
If you would like to know more about the meaning of LEGAL “justice”, see:
- Sovereignty Forms and Instructions Online, Form #10.004, Cites by Topic: “justice”
- What is “Justice”?, Form #05.050
- Sovereignty and Freedom Page, Section 7: Freedom, Liberty, and Justice, Family Guardian Fellowship (OFFSITE LINK)
- Pastor John Weaver Sermons on “justice” (OFFSITE LINKS):
4.1 Are You Special
4.2 Hemlock Justice
4.3 Injustice, Grace, and Patience
4.4 So, You Say You Want Justice
QUESTION 1: Is self-ownership and the right to exclude that comes with that ownership the origin of justice, meaning the right to be let alone?
ANSWER 1: The concept of self-ownership and the right to exclude others from one’s person or property can be seen as foundational principles that underpin the right to be let alone or the right to privacy. These ideas are often considered important elements of individual autonomy and personal freedom.
Self-ownership refers to the idea that individuals have the right to own and control their own bodies, minds, and labor. It asserts that individuals have the inherent right to make decisions about their own lives, free from unwarranted interference or coercion. The right to exclude, on the other hand, entails the ability to determine who has access to oneself or one’s property and who does not.
The right to be let alone, also known as the right to privacy, is closely related to these concepts. It encompasses the idea that individuals have a sphere of personal autonomy that should be respected and protected. It includes the right to control the collection, use, and dissemination of personal information, as well as the freedom from unwarranted surveillance and intrusion into one’s private affairs.
While the origins of justice are a complex and multifaceted topic, it can be argued that the principles of self-ownership and the right to exclude form an important basis for the concept of justice. These principles recognize and safeguard individual autonomy and the ability to make choices about one’s own life without undue interference. The right to be let alone can be seen as a manifestation of justice in the context of personal privacy and autonomy.
QUESTION 2: Does turning justice (the right to be let alone) into a taxable privilege cause injustice?
ANSWER 2: Turning justice, specifically the right to be let alone, into a taxable privilege can indeed be argued to cause injustice. The concept of the right to be let alone, often associated with privacy rights, encompasses the idea that individuals have the freedom to control their personal information and make choices about how it is shared and used. This right is considered fundamental in many legal systems and is seen as a cornerstone of individual autonomy and dignity.
When this right is transformed into a taxable privilege, it creates a situation where only those who can afford to pay for privacy protection can exercise it fully. This creates a disparity between those who have financial means and those who do not, effectively denying equal access to justice and undermining the principle of fairness. It places a burden on individuals who cannot afford to protect their privacy, potentially exposing them to unwanted intrusions, surveillance, and exploitation.
Taxing the right to be let alone also raises ethical concerns. It can be seen as commodifying a fundamental human right, which may be seen as inherently unjust and contrary to the principles of a just society. It suggests that justice can be bought and sold, creating a system where the wealthy have greater access to rights and protections than those with fewer resources.
However, it’s important to note that the concept of taxing privacy or the right to be let alone is purely hypothetical at this point, and there are no widespread examples of such taxation in practice. The discussion presented here is based on the potential implications and considerations surrounding the idea.
COMMENTARY:
Chat GPT in the above answers says justice being injustice is hypothetical, but it isn’t. For a real example, consider that you have become the unjust target of tax collection based on false information returns and the use of a TIN/SSN that you aren’t even eligible for. You file suit to stop the unjust collection.
The court charges $1000 to file a case against injustice at the hands of government, and the money you need to pay the fees is the subject of the dispute and was taken from you. That court fee functions as the equivalent of a tax on the taxable privilege of justice. Judges are called justices, in case you didn’t know. Recall that “taxes” as legally defined include any and all fees charged by government for its services. See:
Sovereignty Forms and Instructions Online, Form #10.004, Cites by Topic: “Taxes”
And to prove that you are a pauper who can’t pay so they can waive the filing fee, they want an SSN and a credit report and false information returns that are also the subject of the dispute. Thus, you have to be a taxpayer with a franchise mark to get justice of being left alone and NOT being a “taxpayer” or customer of any kind of any government civil service.
The chatgpt answer also implicated the right to be let alone with the right of privacy, and yet they want you to GIVE UP your privacy and disclose your income to waive the filing fees. That’s injustice. Its a catch 22 and an INJUSTICE. Surrendering rights to protect rights is an oxymoron if I ever heard one.
Then if you do provide evidence of income, they use that evidence to steal even more and prejudice your case even more before it goes to trial because you can’t afford an attorney.
“To no one will we sell, to no one will we refuse or delay right or justice.”
[Magna Carta, ch. 40 (1215)]
Why do you think that was in the Magna Carta if they weren’t talking about precisely this situation? The King had made justice a PRIVILEGE, and they converted it back to a RIGHT. Duuh.
Here’s what happens when justice becomes a privilege instead of a right: No one can afford it so court cases disappear!
https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/Court-cases-in-California-have-plummeted-17627219.php
Court cases in California have plummeted. Here’s why the state’s chief justice says it’s a very troubling sign, Family Guardian
https://famguardian.org/court-cases-in-california-have-plummeted-heres-why-the-states-chief-justice-says-its-a-very-troubling-sign/
A mafia makes you pay them PROTECTION money. In that scenario, the right to be left alone is DEFINITELY a privilege you have to pay for. That protection money pays for them to leave you alone and not break your knee caps. This activity is a crime and its called RICO:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-96
Having to pay the court, which is an ARM of that mafia, a fee for the PRIVILEGE of getting their mafia cohorts to stop STEALING from you, only extends that mafia. Cases against government corruption should be FREE, or else we have a RICO problem. Irwin Schiff wrote an entire book describing that MAFIA:
The Federal Mafia, Irwin Schiff
https://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/book/lookupid?key=olbp49223
A friend of ours’ wife hired a EX DOJ attorney, and he admitted to my friends wife that the government in fact behaves exactly like a mafia, and that was why he left employment with them.
In this scenario, income tax and court fees are the “protection money”.