Just Laws

Here is my latest and greatest English essay. Let me know what you think.
Just Laws?
Laws never made men a whit more just, because the men who make the laws are for the most part not just either. A just law maker is one who operates using their conscience; unfortunately many people use other things to pass judgment. What makes a conscientious man more just some might ask? The answer is nothing. A person might have a conscious, but that does not mean their conscious will necessarily benefit the greater good. A great many people make decisions using their conscious every day, which does not mean that they have made the right decisions. In the law makers mind they may have made a ‘good’ law, but it might not necessarily be the ‘right’ law.
Thoreau says that men are inherently good. If they are inherently good then they would be governed by their conscience. Their conscience would steer them on the path of righteousness. With their conscience steering them on the right path then they will be able to make the correct choices, pass the good laws, do the right things that will benefit society. However peoples conscience is merely a extension of their beliefs and values. What they believe will influence their actions, this creates a conflict of interest when it comes to passing judgment on a law or a particular action that could affect others. What this person decides might not necessarily be for the good of everyone. What the law makers want and what would be the most beneficial to everyone is not always the same. A law maker might make a law that includes the majority and excludes the minority, according to their own conscience. A different person might make a law that is completely different but with the same problems. A law maker can also make a law that might include a minority group and exclude the majority and other minority groups. Examples of this would be affirmative action, where people that belong to minority groups get preference in jobs, schooling etc. Over a person who belongs to the majority. The reason for this law is to ensure that people from all walks of life get the same opportunities at the getting a good job as everyone else. In theory this law would work great. However in reality many employers will hire a less qualified minority over a better qualified non-minority, just to remain in compliance with the affirmative action laws.
Another example would be the Housing Urban Development (HUD) laws. These laws are too ensure that people with low incomes can have access to quality housing. While this law is great and extremely beneficial to people with low incomes, people who make more money than is allowed under the HUD laws cannot get housing through the program. In towns where the majority of the housing is HUD housing, it makes finding a place to live very hard for average income or single people. A good example of this is the town of Mountain Home, ID. The HUD housing apartments are the most numerous and the best quality in the immediate area. For military members that are looking for housing it is extremely difficult to find it. The only options available are to either settle for lower quality housing at a higher price or make the commute to the next population center 40 miles away. In the end it comes to paying more for less either way. Most people who live in the town make more money than the HUD program allows to qualify for housing, so it excludes a large majority of people from finding affordable, quality housing. This is one example of a law that is not just. While helping out one group it excludes another and does not help them. The person or persons who where the driving force behind it probably used their conscience and where of good mind when creating the law, but they did not think what the consequences would be for the majority of people. Or they just didn’t care and excluded the majority on purpose. . If they believe that HUD laws are just and fair to everyone, then they will support those laws and try to get them passed. This will benefit the low income people, while it will oppress the middle class people who cannot afford the high income housing and do not qualify for HUD housing.

It is sometimes difficult for law to create justice because law is created by law makers and law makers us their conscience to create laws. By using their conscience they apply their own beliefs to their work. This can be applied to any organization such as corporations and governments too. An organization is really only as great as the people that belong to it. If a corporation is full of people with good intent and are conscientious then they will generally do the right thing, making good decisions for their employees, customers, the environment and countless other factors that make up a successful company. On the other hand if a company of schemers and people whose conscience does not play a part in their dealings then the company will have dealings similar to what happened with Enron. Or the people involved with Saudi Oil. Conscience must start from the top and hopefully have a trickle down effect. If for example the President is a conscientious person and this reflects in how he or she (it will happen) makes policy, administers the Executive, deals with foreign governments and all the rest of their responsibilities it will encourage and reflect on the rest of the government to act responsibly and do the right thing. Not just in the professional aspect, but in personal life as well, since personal life at least for well known people is just a visible as their professional life these days. Would the President being conscientious guarantee justice though? No. For starters one person’s idea of justice could differ from the next person. For a psychopathic murderer one person might want the death penalty, while another would want imprisonment and treatment. Same crime, different justice. The laws that people pass might not fit another persons idea of justice, just their’s. However if a person was conscientious enough to consider all angles of what their law or course of action might cause then they could know what the causes of what they are doing. It would be impossible for one person to do this though. A group of conscience minded people together could figure it out though. That is why laws in the American government system are put to a vote. Hopefully with enough conscience minded people together they would be able to make a law that works for everyone. Thoreau says “No man with a genius for legislation has appeared in America. They are rare in the history of the world”. This is proven quite true in the current government.
Thoreau’s idea of not belonging to any incorporated entity or government would be the perfect form of conscience minded justice. Without anyone to make any rules or laws for the society that a person inhabited their conscience would govern themselves. Dispensing justice where it is due, at the whim of their own conscience. This would work great if every one had the same idea of justice and if people where truly inherently good. In the perfect world this would work great, but not in reality. People are always looking for at what is on the other side of the fence, wondering if the grass is greener on that side. Well it looks greener maybe they could just go take some from their neighbor and bring it back to their side. Well their neighbor doesn’t want to give up their greener grass and stops the person from taking it. Something happens and they dispense their own form of justice on each other. That’s where laws come in to dispute these problems. It is in people nature to want something better. It is really a survival instinct from the cavemen days. Back then they had to fight for just the basics to survive so it was bred into human beings to fight for what they want. So because of this people are not inherently good.
In conclusion Thoreau’s idea that laws never made men a whit more just is correct. Laws are created by mankind, and the people who make the laws are not just, so they cannot make a just law. Law makers create laws using their conscience, their conscience is swayed by their beliefs and values so everything they do will have their interests in mind, not really the interests of every one. People are supposed to be inherently good, but human nature disproves this making Thoreau’s belief in that not true. Laws never made man a whit more Just.