This is the area of thought that is usually called "distributive justice," and it is distinguished from the "justice system" -- the police, courts, prisons, and so on -- which is a system for producing "corrective justice."

One of the perennial issues facing any society, then, is how do we divide up the benefits and burdens of social cooperation?

The quote from Gov. Kathleen Sebelius above is her response to the decision not to allow the construction of coal-fired power plants in southwest Kansas. She seems to be arguing that part of what is wrong with the proposal is the imbalance between benefits and burdens. Only 15 percent of the benefits -- the energy produced -- but all 100 percent of the burdens -- the pollution -- would belong to Kansas.

Although she does not address it specifically, she seems to be saying that if the benefits and burdens were at least roughly proportional for the people directly affected by the power plants, she would not have this objection.

Will Manly then explained that he disagrees with the power plant decision, but in his disagreement he seems to agree with the principle that the burdens and benefits should be roughly proportional. He is disagreeing with Gov. Sebelius, however, in terms of what area or region we should be looking at.

He seems to be arguing that if we look at southwest Kansas as a unit -- not the state of Kansas as a whole, but just southwest Kansas -- then we would see that the benefits that would come to the area from building the coal-fired plants would indeed balance the burdens. (As a way of having decisions bring distributive justice to southwest Kansas, he then proposes secession.)

The line of thought of Gov. Sebelius and Mr. Manly is exactly the argument that many have made in opposition to the proposed industrial wind development just outside of Hays, Kansas: The burdens and the benefits are not in a rough proportion.

The burdens of the industrial wind project include the increased noise pollution and increased health risks that will fall in a particularly heavy way on those within a mile and a half of the proposed turbines and then the consequent lower property value for this newly undesirable property.

The benefits of the industrial wind project would include the electrical energy produced, the profits from the government subsidies and the sale of the energy, and the payments to owners of the land that is leased.

Other burdens and benefits have been part of the discussion, too. Burdens include the need to develop a backup power supply -- typically a coal-fired or natural gas-fired power plant -- for the times when the wind does not blow, the higher costs to consumers of the energy, and possibly the chilling effect that developing the countryside into an industry would have on the further economic development of Hays, Kansas.

Other benefits that have been mentioned include the transient financial benefits of having workers come from other states to live in the Kansas cities of Hays or Ellis during the construction phase and the lasting financial benefits of the additional half-dozen or dozen jobs that would be created for the caretakers of the industry.

But the main burdens seem to be the health risks and loss of property values, while the main benefits seem to be the energy produced and the money that will go to some.

So what do we do if burdens are unjustly distributed? What do we do if one child is carrying a really heavy bag, while another is carrying almost nothing? We shift the burdens around. We try to make it more just.

Similarly, if the benefits of energy production are really so important to a society, then justice demands that the burdens be shared so that they are pretty much in proportion to the benefits one receives.

Like Gov. Sebelius and Mr. Manly, we should push for justice. We should never accept a system that would lay the burden on a few for the benefit of others. We should never accept an industrial wind operation -- or any other industrial development -- that willingly and avoidably produces such injustice.