[CamperBob2]

That seems like a narrow definition of "justice." Shouldn't it also encompass freedom from the consequences of prejudicial choices made by others? Not every negative consequence arises from one's personal actions, after all.

[rayiner]

> Shouldn't it also encompass freedom from the consequences of prejudicial choices made by others

Not necessarily? That’s hardly within the traditional American notion of the scope of government. Core american principles focus on protecting people from the government, not the government protecting people from each other.

[candiddevmike]

> Core american principles focus on protecting people from the government, not the government protecting people from each other.

What part of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" do you think doesn't involve protecting people from each other?

[rayiner]

Thomas Jefferson coined that phrase. Show me where he talks about a muscular government protecting people from each other.

To a certain extent, that’s a baseline function of every government, sure. But there is a tension between “a government big enough to protect people from each other” and a “government big enough to deprive citizens of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” The founding American principles draw the line between those two in a different place than other traditions.

[wnoise]

> not the government protecting people from each other.

That's literally the purpose of both criminal and civil laws.