I do understand being committed to a point of view.

The fundamental problem with "going back to the Natural Law," as I see it, is that even 'reasonable' people will inevitably arrive at different interpretations of it--and especially its implications for the governance of society. Even boiling justice down to 'liberty and equality' has not prevented the unraveling of Liberalism.

To my mind, every idea of justice that has ever been conceived, secular or sacral, boils down to mutual respect: people taking one another into account as people live our separate lives together in this world. My studies have taught me that mutual respect contains a set of absolute prohibitions: no killing, harming, coercing, stealing, or manipulating in our relations with other people. Anyone who is refraining from such acts is respecting others enough, being just enough.

Rather than attempt to go back to a conception of justice that has been abandoned, why not go forward to explicitly recognizing mutual respect as the ethic of justice and therefore the principle of governance for society? A society governed by mutual respect would have a democratic political process and the maximum liberty that coexisting people can share. I have spent my adult life developing a paradigm for applying mutual respect the the economic system. The results are astonishing: no unemployment, poverty, or taxes (if government does not exceed anywhere its allotted funding--the current per capita rate of total government spending) and increased sustainability in a self-regulating economy.