----------------
The Formation Quest & Society
Legal Services within Our Politics and Government
----------------
In brief, moral legal services...
  would exist from individuals within both political sectors of a moral social contract. The experts therein would provide essential public services in both cases, yet only those within the executive branch of the public sector inclusively would represent all the people as a moral interest group.
  It's then that one of their governing divisions, one of elections ,  would accommodate all the people in electing their public-sector office holders and initiating and voting on referenda within the workings of a moral democracy. Given the relevant applications from the formative logic, not even the individuals elected would serve based on those statutes of limitations we call "terms of office" because, absent an office holder's resignation, death or loss of enfranchisement, the people can act to recall him or her at any time through a referendum for recall.
  Legal experts would provide counseling within the private sector as well the public, the latter without financial cost to individuals on a first-come, first-served basis. Some would be expert in the language of the law as it could frame politically for social institution. This includes that for citizen initiation or to challenge laws already instituted, the latter to be presented before the appellate court. Others would be expert in applying words to sensible events. These would prepare cases for and/or make cases within a trial court in behalf of a logical plaintiff or defendant. Some, of course, could be expert in both.
  The Business and Professional Regulation division within the executive branch would administer and proctor tests to establish these experts' credentials as experts. They'd do so by applying the formative logic to the interface between language and those particular sensible events within which human individuals would be adversarial. Importantly, they'd only "police" the experts' performances thereafter through the court system as any logical plaintiff morally could. The same would follow concerning those who'd misrepresent themselves as credentialed experts. In both cases, the equal application which forms to be the rule of moral law and not of top-down ruling men then would prevail.
  Regardless, even the uncertified lay person may represent another in matters of law, even as she or he may represent herself or himself. As for a political party or church, say, she or he also may combine with others to form private interest groups, but in no such case should they enjoy political authority. Though this is within their fully-optionable private rights which politically we must protect for all equally, they've no moral right to impose their authority politically. If they would, they'd immorally exclude still others from enjoying a similar status except as they'd permit it.
  Yet we have let them do this- even let them develop their own, insular legal language and top-down practices. We've let them exclude us from clearly knowing the social consequences which they impose upon us unless we join their immoral interest groups. Moreover, even if we do, we're not immune from the selective applications of their word-conceptual laws and practices.
  Within our economically most advanced and, insidiously, less-tyrannical societies, we call them "lawyers," "barristers," "solicitors" or "legal counselors," and have let them replace the rule of moral law from our humanly-common source with their own- both analogously through language and personally. We've let their group memberships form from their internal regulation and governance within the morally-included private sector to extend throughout both sectors of our government by men. 
  It's then that they not only control our access to legal services but also rule over us from above through their instituted laws and courts as well. If it's a fact that a better way to rob a bank is to own it- and unfortunately that's too often been the case- then it also is that the better way selectively to avoid the penalty of a law is to write and/or interpret it to your own individual self-interests.
  As it is, our option either is to acquiesce or rebel in moral civil disobedience. Even given our word-conceptual knowledge, including that portion they exclusively arrogate politically unto themselves, it's patently illogical that we commonly even could have the alleged "rule of law" if only allegedly-expertized lawyers even can know enough about it to apply it to the rest of us who presumably can't. There and then, these same "authorities" also tell us that "ignorance of the [their] law is of no avail."
  In sum, our prescriptive and proscriptive law from its ignored, formative source, morally requires us to honor everyone's equal right to know the social consequences others politically would impose upon himself or herself in advance. We must bring our legal experts also to know and practice this. There's no prospect for us to achieve much more than the lip service they vest in the word-concepts of "prior consent" and "informed choice" otherwise. If custodially they'd not be part of the solution our moral defense requires, at least let us- and them- act to see they're not part of the problem.

 

     Home    Contents    Communication    Top    


Thanks for visiting The Formation Quest

Last modified on June 9, 1999