Essay: Scales Of Justice In A Globalizing World.

Discuss About the Scales of Justice Reimagining Political Space in a Globalizing World.

The Principle of Parity

Read all the laws prescribed by a country and you will find that you are living in a utopia. Most of the books under the title of the constitution and penal codes or laws of the state advocates’ equality among all the citizens of the country. “The principle of parity” is a magical word. Check out the constitutions of various democratic countries and you will find “The Principle of Parity” written in golden words. The most common definition of the principle of parity says that everyone is equal in front of the law of the land devoid of their caste, creed, nationality and financial status (Fraser, 2013).

Let’s now under explore another term, under the head “the principle of the natural justice.” The principle of the natural justice refers to the social norms prevailing in an area. For instance UAE may have a different set of laws in comparison with the other parts of the world; still, it is the same for everyone once you are inside the country. They will give you an entry only in under the condition that you will follow their laws. When we check the same issue in Australia then we find that they define the same principle under the term procedural fairness for one and all (Robertson, 2015).

Beyond the books, the accomplishment records of the justice also decide the worth of a society as an organization. In the organized society, you will find no impurities based on the financial status of an individual. In the current assignment, we are exploring the "Just or unjust" status of the societies that are living in Australia, New Zealand, and the USA. We will also compare and contrast certain other social systems to support the arguments that we will present in the course of this essay.

In order to furnish a scale for an "unjust or just" society let's assume that wealth is the root cause behind every unjust practice that is prevailing in the society. The history of the world gives us numerous examples of injustice in various systems. For example, taxation is one such area.  During the medieval era, Mughal dynasty of India forced a tax on non-Muslims of the society. Under one of the provisions, if an individual accepts the conversion into the Islam then, in this case, they were not liable to pay the taxes (Avari, 2013).

Now we can see that how economic activities can make an entry in the other spheres of the economy and create an environment of injustice for inferior races. The laws of any given land are an outcome of the economic, moral and political philosophy of any society. Additional taxation on the native Indians and non-muslims during the reign of Mughal dynasty was an invasion of a fundamental right on an individual. As a general practice, every individual living in a country should be given equal opportunities to earn and build his own fortunes (Rai, 2011).

The Principle of Natural Justice

Let’s keep aside the legal books and the theories of social science aside and have a look at the history of USA. Alone history books and popular literature introduces us with the terms like “American Identity” and “American Dreams.” Their efforts in the direction of a social engineering of an equal society are an example for the other countries of the world. We must say that Australia is also following the same footsteps. The current Australian society is tolerant towards aboriginal people and the existing laws and other social system give them equal opportunity. It is the same with America where they are raising voices in the favor of rich people. A sentiment is building up where taxpayers are questioning the government for the allocation of certain subsidies (Don Watkins, 2016).   If privileged strata of the society are raising voice against the privileges given to lower strata of society then it shows that concerns of the government for the human rights and human index are high. There may be a difference of opinion, still, such type of protests ensure that a weaker section of the society is getting its due and this indicates towards a society where the justice is prevailing (Johnson, 2014).

In the year 1964 US marketplace won the status of being a free market, it means after paying a license fee any individual or firm can trade in the market and no extra taxation burdens will be levied on them. US Equal Employment Opportunity (EEOC) is another law and a constitutional duty for the government to make sure that all the citizens are getting an equal opportunity for the employment ahead of their economic or racial status (Bovard, 2018). Australian society, legal systems, and constitution also promote the same sentiment. Under no conditions, the opportunities of a person having least wealth can be seized. The laws pertaining to EEOC caters to the all types of discrimination and wage structures at the workplace. The financial status of an individual is the last thing that they consider while listening to the plea of an individual. Check out the gazettes and journals corresponding to this department where multinational giants paying huge money as compensation is common news (Constangy Brooks Smith, 2018).  

Taxation and subsidy are two different sides of the same coin. Before we illustrate this fundamental philosophy of any given democracy, let’s first have a look at the cases of economic imperialism from the history of the world. East India Company of Great Britain was doing business in most of the countries under the permission of the queen of Britain (Raymond E Dumett, 2014). Officially the queen of Britain was reigning on the world at that point in time. T

Just or Unjust Societies

he countries that were under the rule of Britain are also known as Commonwealth countries. In the current we are focusing on the USA and Australia, both these countries were once the colonies of British rulers. The farmers were not able to practice the crop of their choice. Industrialists were bound by the laws of government. Both Australia and the USA were not free trade countries at that point. After the decline of the British Empire, the hangover of the colonial mindset remained fresh in the mind of the people. British people left behind a culture of economic imperialism. After their departure, the rich people of the society continued the same legacy and tried to acquire the vacant seat left by the British Rulers. It was the time when the society was under the realms of unjust, factors like money, bribe and corruption were prevailing. The gap between the rich strata of the society was very high (Christopher Abel, 2015). When democratically elected governments started their stint, on the policy level they did two things, first they started imposing taxes on the rich strata of the society under the titles like luxury tax and others. Secondly, they started offering loans and other facilities to the poor people of the society so that they can come up in the mainstream and improve their financial status (Rivlin, 2010).  

It might like an anti-theory but the government of the USA and Australia always tried to fill the gaps of wealth prevailing in the society. Heavy taxation on the luxury items and business loans for the budding entrepreneurs from the weaker sections of the society is a poignant example of it. They earned from the taxation and gave subsidy to the weaker section of the society to bring them at par with the mainstream. Both Australia and USA follows a capitalistic political system. Under this system, a rich person or organization can make money by investing money. The ownership of the goods, businesses, and services may remain in private hands and they can utilize them for making more money. Both Australia and the USA successfully managed to promote capitalistic ventures while securing the interests of the masses (Gilpin, 2018). The distribution of the public goods is justified. The business fraternity in both the countries is keen on returning back some of its profits to the wellbeing of the masses. They are committed to bridging the gap between the rich and the poor.

Wealth as the Root Cause of Injustice

During the days of the economic imperialism, private sector players were paying taxes but the profit earned by the players was not reaching back to the sons of the soil (Smith, 2016). In present arrangements, it is reaching back to the sons of soils. Certain small regulations are supporting this task. If a company sets up a huge commercial factory in any given area with an intention to exploit the natural treasure of the area like petroleum or metal ores then they are bound to generate employment for the local people in order to save the taxes (Andrew P Sage, 2011).

The simple principle of subsidy and taxation are acting as a leveller of the economy and balancing the pendulum of economy and laws in the favour a justified society where they are respecting the “capacity of a rich person” to earn more through investments and “necessity of a lower strata person” by giving him enough opportunities to earn with the help of the work and other means (Christopher Abel, 2015).

Let's assume for a while that the natural treasure present in the crest of the earth is a public property and every native has equal rights over it. Then, in this case, we find a justified scenario. A big industry is investing in order to gain a control over a public good and make a profit. In the same breath, a poor person or a lower strata person is also getting his share of the public property in the form of employment opportunities and other services.

Most of the aboriginal people in Australia hail from the places that are rich in minerals and natural resources. Most of them got displaced after the arrival of the mining industry in its full swing. They got compensated duly by the government on various scales. For instance, the CSR spectrum of mining industry supported them in the process of rehabilitation. These mining companies are bound to share a certain profit with the aboriginal people by providing them free sanitation and health services (Scambary, 2013). These companies are also offering employment to the aboriginal people. This is a good example of paying back. Mining industry robbed the ecosystem of aboriginal people and now they are setting up a new ecosystem for them with the help of consistent efforts (Faircheallaigh, 2015).

The presence of an amicable set of the laws creates an environment of equality in the society. In the case of the USA and Australia, these laws are present and balancing the social and macroeconomic structure of the economies. During the 17^th and 18^th century the things were different, it was the time when European countries were making colonies in the USA and Australia. They were forcing native people to abide by their conditions. Slave trade was at its peak and native people were not getting equal opportunities (Mountford, 2016).

The History of USA and Australia

Any given industrial setup demands three things primarily, we need a technology, we need labor force to work with the technology and finally, we need a market where we can sell the goods and make a profit. The theories of the idealistic economy say that the profits should be shared equally between the investors and the labors. Any discrepancy in the sharing can cause a disturbance in the social structure of the society or it can bring in some negative impacts on the human right index of that particular area (McGlade, 2016).

During the days of economic imperialism, any person or the institution holding a large chunk of the money was the favored party of the law. It was the time when lawmakers were busy in the listening to the sounds of profits. Labors were not getting their dues. Economic factors were super seeding the principles of the natural justice. For instance, the wage structures of the American African slaves were different from the wage structures of European labors or the white people (Robert Weemes, 2017). Most of the factory owners and farm owners were doing it with the help of adequate laws of the land forced by them by bribing the authorities.

The current scenario is different, now we are living in the era of equal opportunity. Human rights index for the labors and poor people in Australian and American societies are vigilant enough to serve the interests of the labor class. We should never forget the fact that the current legal and economic frameworks in both these countries are first ensuring an environment of equal opportunity for the labor class by treating them as the joint owner of the natural wealth. Secondly, they are ensuring that the rights of the current bonafide citizens of the land are well served. Human rights index can be considered as one such metrics in the same direction (Kim Fross, 2014).

Parity in front of the law is another factor. Both the countries allow its citizen to represent their cases with equal tenacity in front of the law. In both the countries, the legal bodies are duty bound to provide proper attorneys to the poor people if they are facing a courtroom trial. Rich and capable people can hire an attorney and take the services of a private firm it is implied. However, a poor person may need some support from the side of the government to represent his case in a legal corridor that understands the facts under a different terminology. The providence of a government attorney to a poor person is a vital example to reflect that both the societies are committed to dispensing justice to all devoid of their financial status.

Equal Opportunity and Employment

Conclusion

There is nothing wrong with purchasing a privilege, if a person has earned money and want to live a life under certain luxuries then it is his birthright. In the similar fashion, a poor person also deserves his proper rights from a system where they are distributing the fruits earned from a public good or a public treasure. Whenever we will try to adjudge the "Just or the Unjust" nature of the society based on economic status of the individuals then these two fundamentals will guide us. We cannot deny the power to the money, it is a hard fact, however, as a lawmaker or a policy maker we can ensure that the multiplier of the money is reaching equally to all sections of the society and supporting the human right index ahead of its economic implications.

The terminology of the business identifies certain principles like "high-risk high gain" and “better knowledge and skill set means better income.” If the laws of any land are promoting and serving the interests of these two “proverbial business world sayings" then we can safely say that the society flourishing under this land is a justified society and wealth is not a criterion for the implementation of the principle of natural justice.   

References

Andrew P Sage, W. B. (2011). Economic Systems Analysis and Assessment. New Jersey: Wiley Publishing.

Avari, B. (2013). Islamic Civilization in South Asia: A History of Muslim Power and Presence. Abingdon: Routledge.

Bovard, J. (2018). EEOC Federal Guidance ruling gives Trump the opportunity to fix Obama-era mistakes. USA Today. Viewed on 24-08-2018. https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/02/14/eeoc-federal-guidance-ruling-gives-trump-opportunity-fix-obama-era-mistakes-james-bovard-column/331130002/.

Christopher Abel, C. M. (2015). Latin America, Economic Imperialism, and the State. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.

Constangy Brooks Smith, P. L. (2018). A ho-hum EEOC strategic plan? Maybe that's not so bad. Lexology, Viewed on 23-08-2018.https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=401a8295-4381-4121-a3dc-0ec8bc9b193c.

Don Watkins, Y. B. (2016). Equal Is Unfair: America's Misguided Fight Against Income Inequality. New York: St. Martins Press.

Faircheallaigh, C. O. (2015). Negotiations in the Indigenous World. Abingdon: Routledge.

Fraser, N. (2013). Scales of Justice: Reimagining Political Space in a Globalizing World. New Jersey: Wiley Publishing House.

Gilpin, R. (2018). The Challenge of Global Capitalism: The World Economy in the 21st Century. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Johnson, H. B. (2014). The American Dream and the Power of Wealth. Abingdon: Routledge.

Kim Fross, M. M. (2014). Speaking Justice to Power: Ethical and Methodological Challenges for Evaluators. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers.

McGlade, H. (2016). Our Greatest Challenge: Aboriginal Children and Human Rights. Acton: Aboriginal Studies Press.

Mountford, B. (2016). Britain, China, and Colonial Australia. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Rai, U. R. (2011). Fundamental Rights and Their Enforcement. New Delhi: PHI Learning Private Limited.

Raymond E Dumett. (2014). Gentlemanly Capitalism and British Imperialism: The New Debate on Empire. Abingdon: Routledge.

Rivlin, G. (2010). Broke, USA: From Pawnshops to Poverty, Inc.—How the Working Poor Became Big. London: Harper & Collins.

Robert Weemes, J. C. (2017). Building the Black Metropolis: African American Entrepreneurship in Chicago. Champaign: University of Illinois Press.

Robertson, A. (2015).