• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Getting the "government" We Deserve

Slow down there, fellow. Your anger at the rot we see all around us may be justified, but it is also blinding you to where some of the problems lie.

A. Political parties have existed for centuries, and before them were various groupings all based around common interests. Athenian democracy was swayed to a large extent by the "Navy gang", large numbers of professional oarsmen who manned the fleet and were responsible for both the security of Athens and projecting power into the Aegean. (Oarsmen as slaves were not common until the 1400's)There were also landowners, Hoplites, Aristocrats and artisans who had divergent interests from the Navy gang. The Athenian practice of selecting executive positions by random drawings (by lot) was an attempt to prevent or at least reduce the possibility of one large group dominating the governing process. Even if there were a thousand oarsmen in the assembly to cast a vote, it wasn't always the oarsmen who were in the executive positions of the Eklessia or Boule.

If you could abolish political parties today, tomorrow morning I would be finding people with common interests to combine forces. This is really what a political party is.

B. "The first thing we do, lets kill all the lawyers" (King Henry the Sixth, IV, ii 86); "Woe unto you Lawyers" (Luke 11:52). Dislike of lawyers goes back a long way (Luke wrote in late Roman times, Shakespear in the 1500's). This may be driven by envy, as well as the loosing party in a dispute will blame the lawyer as the agent of his/her misfortune. Lawyers are people, and thus subject to the same forces and emotions we all are. The fact that some people who go into politics fall victim to temptation and greed is simply a human failing. This might happen to you or I if the curcumstances are correct.

C. The root cause (courtesy of Wikipedia):

"Another interesting insight from the Athenian democracy comes from the law that excluded from decisions of war those citizens that had property close to the city's wall on the basis that they had a personal interest in the outcome of such debates because the practice of an invading army was at the time to destroy the land outside the walls. Clearly, the first democrats understood politics as a process in the interests of the entire demos where private interests had no place. This contrasts with current understanding that the pursuit of private or sector/professional/financial interests are an integral part of the political process. A good example of the contempt the first democrats felt for those who did not participate in politics can be found in the modern word 'idiot' that finds its origins in the ancient Greek word á¼°Î'ιώτης (idiÃ…?tÄ“s) meaning a private person, a person who is not actively interested in politics; such characters were talked about with contempt and the word acquired eventually its modern meaning."

Clearly the Liberals and their friends preffer you and I to remain "private persons, not actively interested in politics". Low voter turnout and the lack of response to blatant outrages like Adscam must seem like dreams come true for Mr Dithers and Co. I want you all to mark your calendar the day the Gomery report comes out. Anyone willing to bet there WILL be an election called 30 days after the date of the report? Anyone willing to bet there will be a huge outpouring of popular protest if the "promise" of an election is ignored?

That, my friends, is the real reason we get the "Government" we deserve; not enough people come out and take action any more. Passive/aggressive spoiling of the ballot doesn't help matters, and saying there is no party that represents you is nonsense, you can find a big tent party that supports some of your views (or similar views, i.e. Conservatives and Libertarians), join a smaller party (the Marxist -Leninist party really needs your help), or run yourself (maybe a lot of people will agree with your views). Don't end up as an "Idiot".


 
Those lawyers sure are a bad lot.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050707/JUSTICE07/TPNational/?query=legal+legend
Legal legend goes back to serving Quebec 's poor
Retired judges, lawyers, donate time to guide people through system

BY KIRK MAKIN

THURSDAY, JULY 7, 2005 UPDATED AT 11:15 AM EDT
JUSTICE REPORTER

QUEBEC -- Fifty years after she hung out a legal shingle and began serving poverty-stricken clients, former Supreme Court of Canada judge Claire L'Heureux-Dubé has returned to her old haunts.

Just a hundred metres from the Quebec City law office where she began her career, the 77-year-old legal legend is again serving the poor and dispossessed.

This time, however, Ms. L'Heureux-Dubé has created a unique legal service that is generating interest throughout Quebec and beyond.

Known as La Maison de justice, or Justice House, it consists of about 45 volunteers, mostly retired judges, notaries and lawyers, who donate several hours of their time each week.

In less than three years, they have guided 10,554 frustrated individuals through the complicated justice system.

Their services range from explaining where to find a lawyer, to drafting a will, to helping fill out forms for small claims court, to explaining how the family-court system works.

The only thing they will not do is offer specific legal advice.

At a time when governments pinch every possible dollar, the operation is also astonishingly cheap, with a budget of $20,000 a year.

Office space is provided free within the office of the Quebec City ombudsman, leaving only the cost of a part-time secretary and office supplies.

"This is the most important thing I am doing right now," Ms. L'Heureux-Dubé said in an interview. "I'm really back home to my roots. I put my heart into it because I believe in it. It's such a beautiful concept: retired people with experience who want to give to the community. It's good for everybody's soul."

Several cities in Quebec are planning offices modelled after La Maison de justice, she said.

Ontario's Ministry of the Attorney-General sent a senior official to look at the project not long ago, and there also have been expressions of interest from as far away as Victoria.

Ms. L'Heureux-Dubé said that patient, knowledgeable counsellors should be an indispensable part of any justice system, because people who lack money or sophistication are prone to being shooed away by bureaucrats and harried court workers.

"People get frustrated at being sent away, and then the judicial system ends up being looked at like a monster," she said.

"I had one lady tell me recently: 'This is the first time I have been treated like a human being. Finally, someone has given me an answer.' "

Sometimes people simply give up in disgust, Ms. L'Heureux-Dubé added. "Part of our job is just listening to them. They want to talk about their problems. They want to be sure that the step they are taking is a good step. Often, they are actually afraid of lawyers."

The idea for the service was hatched several years ago when then Quebec City mayor Jean-Paul L'Allier and Paul Bégin, provincial justice minister at the time, travelled to France to see similar operations that exist in every major city. However, they came up with a distinctive twist: Counsellors would operate on a pro bono basis, rather than earning a salary.

Ms. L'Heureux-Dubé was an obvious choice to run the pilot project.

"She is an amazing person; a really unique person," said Ombudsman Pierre Angers. "She is the most motivated person I know when it comes to getting access to justice for this class of people."

A lifelong social activist and a Supreme Court judge from 1987 to 2004, Ms. L'Heureux-Dubé has assembled an extraordinary circle of contacts in the judiciary, legal profession, academia and humanitarian causes.

They came in handy when it was time to find volunteer recruits and gain institutional acceptance for La Maison de justice.

Despite a punishing post-retirement schedule that includes lecturing, advising and giving speeches around the world, Ms. L'Heureux-Dubé said La Maison de justice remains her favourite project.

However, she has had to confine her role primarily to administrative tasks and drumming up new counsellors.

"The people all want to see me," she explained. "Let's face it -- my reputation is there, and this is a small city. I am afraid of creating a culture of me."

Mr. Angers said a recent survey found that the clients of La Maison de justice were evenly divided by gender, and were clustered mainly in the 25-54 age group.

The majority had matrimonial problems, and 95 per cent said they were satisfied with the help they received.

However, some members of the legal establishment fear La Maison de justice could siphon off clients who ought to be turning to them for paid legal services.

But Mr. Angers said there should be no such worries. "We actually refer new clients to them," he said. "We serve people who are not rich enough to pay a lawyer, but have too much money to qualify for legal aid."

© Copyright 2005 Bell Globemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Shame on them for refusing to conform to the stereotypes of the envious majority.  Next thing you know they will want to serve by lending their skill and knowledge to the nation by serving in parliament and drafting laws - those pesky things through which we govern ourselves and which, if they are not crafted by competent legal scholars, can do more harm than good.


 
Well I did note that,their services range from explaining where to find a lawyer, to drafting a will, to helping fill out forms for small claims court, to explaining how the family-court system works.

The only thing they will not do is offer specific legal advice.


Now isn't that wonderful of them , you can get a will kit anywhere. One might say they are trying to restuct their image, but they have a long way to go baby. As an injured worker how the legal community treats them? Injured workers, damaged soldiers who were banged up serving this country or were poisoned by chemicals used in tests programs, will starve to death or die before their claims are settled. What about all of children who were molested by our great church leaders, the first to eat off the settlements were the lawyers.
No they have along way to go to improve their image in this country.
 
"and drafting laws â “ those pesky things through which we govern ourselves and which, if they are not crafted by competent legal scholars, can do more harm than good.'

- You meam like C-68, The Firearms Act?  Or some of our anti - terrorist legislation?  Or the Criminal Youth Justice Act? 

We are paying top dollar for a sub standard product.  One wonders if SOME lawyers go into politics because they are a waste of rations in the legal profession.  Mr. Allen Rock stating that self defense was not a legitimate use of firearms and was not allowed, comes to mind.  Case law, anyone?

All of the major illegal decisions made at ENRON had lawyers in the room.  None have been or will be charged. 

I like the lawyers I have dealt with and paid for.  I believe I was well served.  But if we have to admit to - and have our profession dragged through the mud over - the Clayton Matchees in OUR midst, then Lawyers can be a bit less protective of their own sociopaths.

Tom
 
As the lawyer woke up after surgery, he said: "Why are all the blinds drawn?"

The doctor answered: "There's a big fire across the street, and we didn't want you to think the operation was a failure."

Yuk, yuk!  I'm here all week!  Hello? ... ahem ... {tap, tap} ... is this thing on?  ... {tap, tap} ...  :-[
 
Ok, quit being clowns - seriously:

All bad policy involves lawyers, thus all lawyers are bad?

WTF kind of logic is that?

I took this thread seriously, but now I don't.

BZ to Art Majoor for the illuminating post.
 
"Ok, quit being clowns - seriously:

All bad policy involves lawyers, thus all lawyers are bad?

WTF kind of logic is that?

I took this thread seriously, but now I don't.

BZ to Art Majoor for the illuminating post."

- Seriously, very few lawyers are bad.   But, like bad soldiers, very few is too many.   If we, in the military profession, are expected to cull the herd, police our own, lay on down on our backs   and pull our dresses over our heads when the country reacts with shock and horror and demands reforms, and keep a thick skin through it all while reassuring ourselves that we aren't all rascist, prisoner killing sociopaths, then we should expect, no, in fact DEMAND, that other professions regulate themselves and eat their young like we do.

Nothing more, nothing less.

I don't like a painting of Clayton Matchee in the new War Museum.   Lawyers don't like people pointing out the crimes of a few lawyers.   Welcome to the club, at least Lawyers get paid better than soldiers.   SUCK IT UP.

Tom
 
I am serious, very serious about political reform.
We must stop the practice of allowing these political parties of having exclusive domain over us all and our collective finances in the guise of "government". This is not democracy by any stretch. Think about this ~ are you satisfied with the Young Offender's Act ? Again, I'm sure many of you can think of other examples of legislation that has been foisted upon you without any consultation or input from the electorate. There are those in all parties who have as much as said that the majority of the electorate ( US) are not capable of determining how our lives should be administered.
Only THEY have been given this divine right. Imagine~ here, in the twenty-first century, we are expected to live under governments and laws that haven't progressed much beyond the seventeenth century in which they were first conceived.

We have all been sold a "bill of goods" that none of us should be prepared to accept. The only people who will tell you there's nothing wrong with the system are those who profit most from the way it is constituted~ the same people who run the political parties and manipulate the public purse to their own ends.
Again, a throwback to the very class-ridden societies that existed in England for the past three or four centuries ~ where you had a snobbish aristocracy at the top who expected everyone below them to pay for their high salaries and even higher life styles ~ very much as our political establishment does today.



 
Just as a Surgeon has a tendency to see surgery as the best course of corrective action for a health problems, Lawyers tend to see "more laws" as the solution to society's ills (particularly as it applies to them).  What we wind-up with is a system of unnecessary, self-serving, often half-baked and sometimes contradictory laws intended to make our society a better place, according to them.  When lawyers apply their legal expertise to the economy, the inevitable result is disasterous.

What we really need is a clear, concise Constitution and attached Bill of Rights, that cannot be rendered irrelevant on the whims of the law-makers (i.e., "Notwithstanding").


"Law is mind without reason." -- Aristotle

"The more corrupt the State, the more numerous the laws" -- Cornelius Tacitus (c. 55-117 A.D.)

"Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys." -- P.J. O'Rourke

And, WRT the party system: "Look at the tyranny of party - at what is called party allegiance, party loyalty - a snare invented by designing men for selfish purposes - and which turns voters into chattles, slaves, rabbits, and all the while their masters, and they themselves are shouting rubbish about liberty, independence, freedom of opinion, freedom of speech, honestly unconscious of the fantastic contradiction; and forgetting or ignoring that their fathers and the churches shouted the same blasphemies a generation earlier when they were closing their doors against the hunted slave, beating his handful of humane defenders with Bible texts and billies, and pocketing the insults and licking the shoes of his Southern master." -- Mark Twain
 
Das Buros immer steht.

People who make laws always seem to think that just one more law will fix everything.  They don't realize that when you take the bare minimum set of laws that are required for a functioning society, add so-called social justice, change the laws for interest groups and the development of technology...it's as if (to refer to the metaphor about sausage and the law) you have sausage stuffing all over the place, and you can't tell where the sausage begins or ends...all you know is that you're covered in goo, and you don't like it.

When I grew up, School Trustees were part-time positions...these people all had real jobs.  Now School Trustees close schools so that they can keep their high, full-time salaries.  They just had to have one more meeting and pass one more resolution on one more important issue to justify their existence...and all the rules and regs cost us more and more and more...and nothing works.  This is a microcosm of bureaucracy in action...
 
I_am_John_Galt said:
Just as a Surgeon has a tendency to see surgery as the best course of corrective action for a health problems, Lawyers tend to see "more laws" as the solution to society's ills (particularly as it applies to them).   What we wind-up with is a system of unnecessary, self-serving, often half-baked and sometimes contradictory laws intended to make our society a better place, according to them.   When lawyers apply their legal expertise to the economy, the inevitable result is didisastrous

You are so right on ( John_Galt ) with your comparison between surgeons and lawyers, keeping the both of them in mind, this is why I feel that they have been provided with to much legislative powers to self-govern and self regulate through the College of Physicians and Surgeons or the Barristers Society .They are accountable only to their governing body and it is my opinion they have to much power, therefore should stay clear of "government" .
But over the past few years I have noticed that they are positioning themselves within "government" to insure they benefit from their position of trust when we vote for them.

Teachers are another example when they get elected to government or just elected, they look out for their professional organization, which is the Union. So, we have or are losing our   "government " to special interest groups and it is we who pay the price.

Here in Nova Scotia the Nova Scotia Government Employees Union has organized two of the most vile government agencies know to this province, they are the Workers Compensation Board and Community Services, both of these vile agencies are forever being called into question for their abuse of power and breach of trust. And not one Lawyer in Nova Scotia has the guts to go after either one, because if they do, they will never eat again or get any "government" work.

The only way as I see it possible to correct this problem is to stop supporting political parties. The NDP point at the Liberal and Conservative as being the parties of big business, while the NDP have their head shoved up the back side of the Nova Scotia Government Employees Union.

Tell me how can we in the public ever expect to get a "government" that will work for us?
 
Your question illustrates the problem: everyone wants a government that "works for him".  All this leads to is factionalism, with the faction in power ramming its ideas down everyone's throats.

The proper solution is to have a government that does as little work as possible for anyone, and for people to "work for themselves".
 
Brad Sallows said:
The proper solution is to have a government that does as little work as possible for anyone, and for people to "work for themselves".

There is the kicker....
 
I know.  We could start with government pruned down to defence and security, and law and order.

Then someone would have a Bright Progressive Idea.  And, you know, forming associations and founding institutions and raising funds is just so much work, and the government is right there with a police force and armed forces to back it up, and golden bureaucratic sinecures are so much more attractive than actually working and worrying from day to day about keeping the operation going, and after all your people are so much smarter and better intentioned than other people anyways...
 
Brad Sallows said:
Your question illustrates the problem: everyone wants a government that "works for him".   All this leads to is factionalism, with the faction in power ramming its ideas down everyone's throats.

The proper solution is to have a government that does as little work as possible for anyone, and for people to "work for themselves".

You are correct to a point, what we have now is a party structured system that works for the few, while the rest of us are forced to work within a regulated tax system, which the few in the political parties control. In other words what appears to be a socially structured system, is really a system being leached on by a bunch of want to be socialites .

For years this country  :cdn:  has maintained on of the best health care systems and it worked, but now thanks to the mismanagement of the public infrastructure dollars it is in pretty rough shape. The question is why were "your and our tax dollars wasted on worthless projects, done in the name of "government" by some self serving political party? Could it be that these parties realize that if they drain the or waste the infrastructure funds, it make it easier to turn over a perfectly good system to their friend?

Here in Nova Scotia we are forever questioning the state of our health care system, but no body seems to care were a 25 million dollar over run went or where all of the original 20 million went, when the "government" was setting up their health registry Ittotal the tax payers lost 45 million dollars on a useless registry while someone made a killing, Nova Scotian'sare being stacked up in Hospital hallways waiting for services.

But then again, those elected party representatives need to pay back those who financed their election campaigns don't they ?

It was wasted and they only put 14 centers on-line leaving 30 without. Not one political party called for an investigation or an inquiry looking into this dead end project. Just think about how many doctors / nurses or MRI machines and operators that would have purchased. These are the people who benefit from the party system .

We are to far into this to get rid of "government" but we must find away to keep check on those party bureaucrats, that have been well placed to make sure the party systems works for the few.  Government should be able to manage our health, road, education, police, military structure with our tax dollars.

Get rid of many of these regulations that only serve the best interest of the few. I would say that we could get by with a much smaller "government / bureaucracy " , one that  projects a true democracy .
 
Mr. Coady, I see from you lots of complaint, but very little in the form of concrete solutions ("get rid of the lawyers" is hardly a concrete solution). What form of democracy would you like to see? How would it work?

Acorn
 
Wayne Coady said:
For years this country  :cdn:  has maintained on of the best health care systems and it worked, but now thanks to the mismanagement of the public infrastructure dollars it is in pretty rough shape. The question is

With respect to the healthcare system, the question is why did we put all of our eggs into a basket that any 1st-year economics student could have told you was doomed to failure from the very beginning?  And why do we continue to make excuses for it?
 
Not making any excuses for it. When a private clinic makes a statement that they can provide a faster service without harming the public system, I have to question where is that clinic getting his physician from?

Using their example that the public system is broken because their is a shortage of doctors, one can only conclude that the doctor shortage would be reflected at that private clinic also. If we go along with the remarks that the public system is broke because of the lack of tax dollars being put into it, and then we learn that the private clinic is doing procedures once done in the public system and being paid out of the public coffers.
So, where did all of the doctors and money come from to support the private clinic? No, I cannot buy into this fable any longer. I will agree cost are going up and we did not produce doctors as fast as we produce lawyers. Imagine if we were turning out doctors and nurses as fast as our universities turn out lawyers.

Here in Nova Scotia those same doctors who are crying about the doctor shortage are the very ones opening up these private clinics.

Here is how I see it, if there are going to be private clinics then I say let them be and the doctors who wish to leave the public system to work for the private then OK too, but one out they cannot come back into the public system or work both sides of the street and all public health care dollars stay in the public system. I have lived in the USA and I have felt the pain of the private health care system first hand.

 
Put all public health care tax dollars into the system. Bring back our nursing schools,we had over 22 nursing school close since the 60's.http://www.msvu.ca/library/archives/nhdp/schools.htm

Lets start giving tax incentives that would grow our physician medical training program. You see our so called elected did not protect the infrastructure programs in place years back, they closed our nursing schools and cut back at the medical schools.
Now look at the mess they have us in, and you know what they say when you question our political masters? They say that was not our fault, we were not in "government", bull! The situation we find ourselves in to day are the result of only two governing parties and it is all because of their policies. This is why we cannot afford to hang onto this old corrupt party system.

We have right now foreign doctors in Canada driving taxis or doing janitor work, why, because the College of Physicians and Surgeons who regulate the medical act and license doctors do not want to share a good thing, in other words they benefit from the shortage which they control. Solution: take away some of the Colleges powers and hire these qualified foreign doctors who are now in Canada.

Article: Why Is Canada Shutting Out Foreign Doctors
http://www.readersdigest.ca/mag/2004/08/doctors.html 
I provided you with a little helpful reading



 
Back
Top