The Formation Quest & Government
The Logical Plaintiff within the Moral Social Contract
In brief, the Logical Plaintiff...
  would be an enfranchisable individual who'd exercise his or her socially-instituted, secondary right custodially to act in the moral defense of himself or herself or another within a moral democracy. This contrasts with his or her primary right personally to act in self-defense or custodially of the privately-primary rights of others sensibly under exigent circumstances. Either way, he or she also could be a logical defendant of another logical plaintiff within that social contract which logically includes others.
  If that geopolitical contract is moral, then the logical plaintiff would be an individual, either acting from her or his own primary rights or custodially in secondary behalf of an unenfranchised other. Either way, she or he would be political and, therefore, logically secondary within her or his social election to participate within the politically-instituted judgmental process. Either way as well, she or he standardizably participates either as a privately-electing individual or as a primary custodian where and when the former only may act in behalf of the unenfranchised and the latter must.
  It's then that an enfranchised individual also forms only to be the primary custodian of the rightful interests of an unenfranchised individual who is his or her primary dependent or the enfranchised logical plaintiff as his or her secondary or optional dependent. Only those who purposefully have political custody within the public sector must act in the primary dependent's interests as stand-in logical plaintiffs and, if requested, in the interest of a secondary dependent who'd first act as a logical plaintiff.
  Those within the public sector who must act as stand-in logical plaintiffs would come from within the executive branch division of human services. More specifically, they'd come from among those expert in human development who'd provide primary essential services therein. Those who'd represent any secondary dependent, any stand-in logical plaintiff included, may be the legal experts from within that same branch or their private-sector counterparts. If the stand-in is from the public sector, then these experts also must be unless a certified legal expert from the other sector would work pro bono.
  The privately-electing logical plaintiff who begins with primary rights may choose to have legal representation from either sector. She or he also may choose any enfranchised individual to provide it. Finally, she or he may choose to forego it completely. All of these possible choices follow from those primary rights.
  Both types of logical plaintiffs with their optionally-chosen legal representation, if any, could appear within the three courts of the moral judicial branch. They must appear within a trial of the trial court if they'd accuse other individuals as their logical defendants. They at least must have their legal representatives appear in their behalf's within the appellate or supreme courts. This applies where and when those courts purposefully deal only with the language of law which a logical plaintiff would contest morally in its possible application, which the supreme court always would. If the logical plaintiff is a stand-in for an unenfranchised individual seeking enfranchisement, then he or she also must appear with the primary dependent to help make the latter's case within the appellate court hearing, with or without added legal counsel.
  All logical plaintiffs as privately electing and with or without legal counsel also could initiate recalls of elected public-sector office holders or initiate referenda which would change the current language of the law. They could do this with or without the assistance of other privately-electing citizens through the executive offices of the legal service's elections division. Moreover, it's important here to note that even secondary custodians employed otherwise within the public-sector equally would have this primary right. It's also important to note that it would require a truly-moral majority of those who qualify to vote actually to vote on the issue before them before a plurality "yes" vote morally could—and must—prevail. It's finally important to note that other logical plaintiffs within the court system could hold these logical plaintiffs to account for their actions, the likelihood of nuisance referenda to reduce accordingly.
  The people directly morally do have the first, equal right to govern themselves within a moral social contract, a moral democracy its formatively logical consequent. With these the givens, it's through the logical plaintiff that socially they can redress their grievances and proactively participate within their government. That a true moral majority of them also could act immorally through their political participation only means that the common formation of their source permits them to reject that formation socially as instituted as well as from within their selves first as individuals.
  To date we've rejected that source and what morally follows from it, doing so in our standardizably-common "formative ignorance." Our plaintiffs haven't enjoyed the fullest-possible range of positive life options which a "utopian" moral social contract initially could provide. If they could start there, I'd suggest, they'd exist within a far-less litigious one than those which at best now enslave them within our "developed" nation-states, those within which our lawyers are just the most-direct beneficiaries among those who do rule as men from top down.  We all now are logical plaintiffs who must take the steps needed just to get to that equal starting line We must unite in moral civil disobedience as necessary where and when if our logical defendants as our rulers force our hand.

     Home    Contents    Communication    Top    

Thanks for visiting The Formation Quest
Last modified on October 20, 1999