> Possibly. I am not really convinced that the concept of 'justice' is
ultimately a useful one on which to base a society. What does a just society
look like?
Like a pie cut into 5 even slices with a turkey knife. I'm inclinded to agree with you, that the concept of justice alone is probably not the best practical foundation of a society. I'm rather fond of the views expressed by Heller and Castoriadis - aiming at an ethico-political vision of democracy on the one hand, and individual and institutional autonomy on the other. In a truly 'good' society justice would be irrelevant, wouldn't it? [which might give us pause whether a 'good' society is desirable]. Still, there needs to be a place for negotiation and discussion - and legal frameworks are potentially suited for this, although probably not in their current form.
> After all, is justice possible without the constant surveillance of every act?
Yes.
> Similarly, insisting on the "innocence" of actions of the US state implies
> for me the acceptance of a rigid network of responsibility, where critics
> of the state might be examined to determine with their motives are
> pure.
I certainly wasn't advocating the innocence of action of the US.
> If we want a society based where 'the free development of each is the
> precondition for the free development of all' (still to me about the best
> way to express my desire for a utopia), then I doubt that the
> falsely-disinterested language of justice is the best way to get there.
I agree with that. The notion that justice is this umpire at a ball game is nuts. Justice *is* a prejudiced position - whether this is conceived of as contexual equity or in terms of equality and fairness.
> along the lines of the liberal principle, the answer to bad law isn't no
> law, but better law? Seems rather one dimensional to me.
Only if laws are understood in a strict teleological sense (as rule and measure). This isn't the only understanding of law out there.
I'm reminded of...
ken