Intersex... doesn't imply that variability is wrong
The meaning of that sentence (with the intervening clause left out to foreground the problem of its construction) is difficult to ascertain. Taking you literally I never said variability is wrong, nor that intersex implies so (whatever that might mean).
In case you meant to say that I'm claiming it is "wrong" to be Intersex, I claimed no such thing. What I wrote is that in complex systems things can go wrong. An example of things going wrong might be the effects of Thalidomide on normal limb development. To say of a person who has been affected by Thalidomide that they are wrong not to have arms, would be unconscionable. Or maybe you meant something else again?
What do you mean by mental, in relation to what?
The very next words of the sentence you quoted --"in contradistinction to sex which is matter" --ought to make that clear. As I wrote in my first post in this thread "[g]ender is defined by words (mind), sex by chromosomes (matter)."
Not at all. I'm simply holding you to the point (the distinction between sex and gender) and ignoring the impertinent nonsense and impotent ad homimens
The point, of course...
... was to correct your misunderstanding, as expressed in the statement: "[G]ender is defined based on the sex you had at birth. Do you have boy bits or girl bits." The rest was either fluff (talk about your "real world"), or irrelevant (who might go to which bathroom, what these people who identify as 'liberals' might believe, why reading or logical thinking is bad, etc.).
So once again: Do you now understand the distinction between sex and gender or does it go "right over your head?"
If sex were defined by chromosomes, then most of the time we wouldn't know what sex anyone was because most of the time we don't know anything about what anyone's chromosomes
OK, sorry I see what you mean. Yes it would create problematic queues at public toilets...
I don't entirely agree with your point about definition though. It is quite as difficult to define this anatomically (which is not immune from individual differences) as it is to overcome the problem of XY "women." Whether you call and XY with female morphology, "technically male," literally is a matter of definition (and for the avoidance of doubt I was never advocating a definition of sex by chromosomes as opposed to morphology (or any definition at all), that was your "nitpicking" which came close to grammar nazism in that context... not that I'm immune to that).
No, gender is defined based on the sex you had at birth. Do you have boy bits or girl bits.
No, that is sex. Gender is (metaphorically) do you play with toy cars or do you play with dolls.
"Sex refers to the biological and physiological characteristics that define men and women. Gender refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviours, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for men and women. (WHO defn)"
The moment we theoretically separate the concept of 'gender' out from sex it becomes a logical possibility for biological sex and cultural gender to become inversely aligned.
Although both are rare, I'd suggest that gender [sic] isn't as binary as some simple-minded people choose to believe it is.
Gender is certainly not binary, sex (with only rare exceptions) is. The exceptions are rare and more to the point they are genetic mishaps. I don't think it's that useful to base a description of normal human morphology on co-joint twins.
There really is such a thing a "in between".
And you need to enclose in speech quotes because this (along with 'intersex') posits two sexes to be between.
There are women, who were born women... who just happen to have XY chromosomes and a genetic insensitivity to the androgens that that Y chromosome produces, so they develop as female anyway.
And there XXY in men, women and intersex people... Yup in complex systems all sorts of things can go wrong. But this is beside the point which was that gender is inherently mental (in contradistinction to sex which is matter, your objection to the word 'chromosome' notwithstanding).
It's rare, but it happens, and if you pin sex to chromosomes, you end up having to call such people male; and also say that most of the time we have no fucking idea what sex anybody is.
Oh I don't mind being wrong on rare occasions.:) I don't follow what you mean about "most of the time" though, nearly all of the time genetics and anatomy work out just fine.
Sorry, AC... Gender is not defined by your thoughts.
Isn't it? I thought the point of the modern concept of 'gender' was to distinguish what exists at the level of narrative, from 'sex' which exists biologically? Gender is defined by words (mind), sex by chromosomes (matter). Or?
You are referring to the summary above I take it...;)
What has happened here is that a minor party (the Greens) have, almost on the spur of the moment, put forward a motion without any attempt to shore up political support in either House of Parliament, and --unsurprisingly, not being on the policy agenda of either major party, --said motion was not carried. There was never any intention by Sen Ludlam that his motion pass (he's not insane you know). This was done instead to highlight the issue (and perhaps his party's stance, though I note he was supported by minor parties of various political shades).
To conclude, as the summary does, that "[i]t appears that implementing comprehensive telephone and email retention in Australia may not have been the end of demands by law enforcement in the country" is either wildly misinformed, disingenuous, or outright insane. Now we probably haven't heard the end of demands by law enforcement in Australia, but the ineluctable defeat of this motion in the Senate has little to do with that.
Just as an aside, it isn't reverse discrimination. There is no such thing, logically speaking.
Inasmuch as the phrase 'reverse discrimination' more precisely describes a phenomenon than the more general 'discrimination' speakers will employ it.
As "logical" as you approach might be, it functions only by decontextualising discrimination. And by positing various discriminations as abstract and equal, "just as racist|sexist" one blind oneself to any systemic cultural biases which might operate against subaltern groups. It is not as though the prevalence of the biases that exist in a culture represent merely the sum total of individual decisions to be biased in any particular direction, any more than the prevalence of English use in anglophone countries can be explained by the sum total of individual choices made by speakers.
In contradistinction to this neat decontextualised logical analysis, an empirical study should turn up actual systemic discrimination where such discrimination exists. But it might turn up more. In a culture where it has become possible to appreciate systemic bias within that culture, individuals (and here we are more likely dealing with the deliberate and reflective decisions of individual members) may decide to (over)compensate for the systemic biases they perceive to operate. That particular form of discrimination, as distinct from others, is 'reverse discrimination' and one needs to account for the possibility that it is affecting observations.
Thus while it may not make much sense purely in the abstract, in real-word situations it has obviously become necessary to discriminate be 'discrimination' generally and 'reverse discrimination' in particular.
Perhaps, but the current method guarantees the opposite.
Not really. Simplicity and clarity, where they can be achieved are very much in the interest of practising lawyers. But anyway...
The point of my original post was that in our rush to hate lawyers (which not surprisingly is characteristic of nations with levels of litigation) we forget what the lawyers have done, and continue to do, for us. Just yesterday I read this in Anna Funder's Stasiland.
The German Democratic Republic paid lip service to the institutions of democracy. There were district attorneys, whose job it was to administer justice, and lawyers, whose job it was to represent clients, and judges, whose job it was to pass judgment. There were, at least on paper, political parties other than the ruling Socialist Unity Party. But really there was just the Party, and its instrument, the Stasi. Judges often got their instructions from the Stasi which, in turn, passed them on from the Party --right down to the outcome of judgment and the length of the sentence. The connection of the Party, the Stasi and the law went from the ground up: the Stasi, in consultation with school principals, recruited obedient students, with an appropriately loyal attitude, for the study of law. I once saw a list of dissertation topics from the Stasi Law School at Potsdam, which included such memorable contributions to the sum of human knowledge as 'On the Probably Causes of the Psychological Pathology of the Desire to Commit Border Infractions'. There was no room for a person to defend themselves against the State because all the defence lawyers and judges were part of it...
... [referring to a lawyer hired for her husband] If he had done nothing for Charlie while he was in prison, she said, he could at least find out how he died.
'Do I look insane to you?' the lawyer said, very cold. 'Do I? You don't truly think I am going to trot down there ans ask what happened, do you? For that you had better find yourself another fool, young lady.'
Miriam is upset again. Here, across the desk, was the face of the system itself: a mockery of a lawyer, making a mockery of her.
I understand it's hard when getting sued, especially if you are unrepresented, to be grateful that we live in a system where lawyers, not mockeries thereof, flourish.
And I would add... the notion that restricting the drafting of laws to people devoid of legal training would be liable to generate clarity and simplicity, is optimistic in the extreme.
You seem to think [law] a technical subject like engineering that should only be handled by trained professionals.
It is a highly technical subject. Whether by formal education or autodidactically, acquiring the requisite level of expertise to be effective lawyer, for example to be a judge on the Supreme Court (to name a position from you proposed to ban lawyers), is non-trivial. Simplicity and clarity are devoutly to be wished for, but It's jejune to imagine that the law facilitating a society and an economy as complex as ours might be encompassed by a set of rules "simple and clear enough that everyone can understand them."
That would just ensure that only lawyers would understand the laws.
Understanding the laws is what lawyers are for. You wouldn't hire a hairdresser to design a bridge. When particular public offices --such as judges, attorneys general, government attorneys, prosecutors head of statutory quasi-prosecutorial bodies &c. --require understanding the law, (require in effect being lawyers), it should be remarkable to hire anyone other than a trained lawyer.
If you meant having lawyers as legislators would "ensure that only lawyers would understand the laws," I think rather it would ensure (or make it more likely) that the legislator understood the laws they were enacting. No matter who passes the laws (and no matter whether they understand the laws they've passed) it's lawyers (as judges are) who are going to be doing the understanding of those laws.
Actually it's more like prohibiting bank CEOs from become SEC chairman.
So long as they are ex-CEOs there is no necessary conflict of interest in that. But again, given the function of the SEC I would have thought that qualifications and experience in finance and securities law would be most appropriate to that role. Rather than prohibiting lawyers from holding any public office it might be desirable to require a law degree as a minimum qualification for many of them.
if you really have rights, you shouldn't have to pay unregulated agents to get those rights.
Unregulated agents? I thought we were talking about lawyers? Seriously, I don't know where you are, but here in Australia, lawyers are the most heavily regulated professionals of the lot.
Montesquieu, a lawyer himself, believed that under a just government no man should live in fear of another - which was progressive thinking for its time, and we've made great progress in this direction.
Yes! It was my point that we have achieved this by means of law.
I think, after more than two centuries of universal education, that we may be ready for every man to know their (true) rights and how to obtain them, on equal footing...
So make everyone a lawyer.;)
Your true rights are those rights you can get enforced, in your favour, in a court of law. Other "rights" are vapourware (until you can get them incorporated into the law such that the preceding applies).
... without having to buy the most talented and expensive agents to enjoy their rights through arcane tricks and manipulations.
They only appear to be "arcane tricks and manipulations" to those not on an equal footing. You are correct however that money still speaks too loudly in claiming "the most talented" lawyers.
Maybe you should consider going to law school you that you can "know [your] (true) rights and how to obtain them." Or you can save yourself the effort and hire someone else to do the job for you should the need arise (hopefully not).
I theory I agree, but the cost of lawyers has made it impractical the average person to get justice. Many people get little or no access to a lawyer...
Socialist gloss: That's a problem of social equity rather than law or legal practice. What we need is a fairer distribution of social resources. Capitalist gloss: Obviously the supply of lawyers is unable to meet the requisite demand, ergo, we need more lawyers, not less!;)
That is largely a problem of social equity rather than law or legal practice.
... Even if you can afford a lawyer you often risk going into serious debt to defend your rights.
In most common law jurisdictions the default order is that the losing party meets the winning party's costs. That deincentivises the abuse of process whereby wealthy litigants without real prospects of success litigate merely to inflict financial pain on their victims. I understand this is not the case in the U.S., why not, I cannot fathom. Where I live, I believe, a lawyer is still prohibited from filing a claim or defence where there are "no reasonable prospects of success."
Also the fact that some firms work on a no-win/no-pay basis or tax-payer funded legal aid for the poor (which urgently needs more funding where I live) can mitigate against the evil you highlight.
I believe every person has the right to their legal rights defended to the same degree no matter what their financial status is.
Abso-fucken-lutely! That is what Law is meant to offer, the realities of existing in a world of vast financial inequality notwithstanding.
Should lawyers be eliminated? Hell yes, by any means necessary.
Such as the institution of the explicitly lawless (and lawyer free) society envisaged by Orwell in 1984 (and approached by countless C20th dictatorships where there was (is) at best a simulacrum of law)? Or by the Hobbesian brutality we witness in those places where all state authority breaks down? Barbarism or The Rule of Whim are the known alternatives to the Rule of Law.
Don't forget what law is. It does not always look like it, but law is the technology by which our culture protects its individual members from the arbitrary exercise of power (whether that of the state of or powerful individuals). If you want rights and you want the individual liberty that law bestows, you'll have to put up with lawyers I'm afraid.
If there is no natural right to property then you do not own your body and organs and freedom because your natural right to property starts with yourself and extends to the fruits of your labour, as they are expression of your time on this planet.
And again, your rights to your own body and organs are those which the law bestows and nothing more. Thus for example NSW law (as I believe does the law of the several states) prohibits the sale of human tissue including one's own (e.g. blood, semen organs), which are all donated.
The idea that one has inherent ownership in one's body (and thus arguably the Lockean conception of property as the admixture of Labor and Nature generally) falls victim to a famous contradiction. Throughout the British C'th till 1833, and for some time thereafter in the US, there existed an entire class of people who famously were not owners of their own bodies, but rather owned. Now when the law sought to prohibit the trade in humans it thereby deprived everyone of one of the most important property rights: the ability to alienate that property. In short the contradiction is this, if by Nature or the Will of God, one was possessed of full proprietary rights to one's own body, one should be able to sell oneself into slavery, but where slavery is permitted to exist there are people who are born with no right to the property in their own bodies.
But again, a right is a protection against a government oppression
Which is again a nonsense, since many rights exist which are enforceable against non-government parties. These include property rights of all kinds, which you are unwittingly arguing do not exist.
A right is protection against government abuse and oppression, nothing else.
"Nonsense walking on stilts!" How are the various rights appurtenant to copyright ownership, for example, "a protection against government abuse and oppression?"
A right is that which you can successfully enforce against another party in a court of law. Of course that is the legal positivist view of what a right is, the natural law folks, among others, entertain different illusions.;)
Thus (lawful) occupancy of land, for example, grants rights (enforced ultimately by the state, but for whom no rights could exist), inter alia the right to exclude from the property other parties (including, but subject to the terms of the lease, the non-occupant owner).
As it happens the standard (short-term) lease in NSW (and this is a matter for the states not the federal government), at least, gives the landlord and tenant the opportunity to come to an arrangement regarding subletting, as it give the landlord a right of refusal providing that right is exercised "reasonably" (see Clause 32)
I would definitely prefer a technology that is less risky and less centralised.
Who wouldn't? But risk management always involves trading off relative risks. One's attitude to the risks of nuclear energy should to be informed by the risks of human induced global warming. If Germany can deliver a 40% emissions cut by 2020 while carrying out a government mandated phase-out of nuclear power (and bearing in mind that in 2010 nuclear accounted for around 22% of Germany's grid), how much more could be achieved if nuclear were permitted to remain in the mix? As Fukushima shows, the damage wrought even by such a black-swan event is negligible in the face of the damage global warming can be expected to wreak.
I prefer setting realistic costs for natural resource usage, if via cap-and-trade or via fossil fuel taxes, to direct subsidies. If we let government pick winners...
Quite.
Maybe nuclear power plants can be safely operated by modern first-world countries (maybe not). But do you really want to see Nigeria, Burma, Iran, Somalia, Colombia, Iran, North Korea and the Principality of Sealand [wikipedia.org] build breeder plants?
That does not seem the most persuasive argument in favour of 1st world countries shutting down their plants (potentially off-shoring them to poorer neighbours).
That's actually a good capitalistic approach.... Of course, in my not-so-uninformed opinion, a nuclear industry wouldn't even exist if not for government-sponsored X,Y &Z.
So are you advocating a market based approach or a government sponsored approach? We can combine both, or course. It is the outcome, after all, that counts. Is your adherence to free-market purity such that you could not conscience any government sponsorship in reducing carbon emissions?
Whether or not nuclear energy requires additional government stimulus, it's an important, (some would argue necessary) source alongside other non-carbon energy sources. I do wonder though, if coal, gas and oil were priced entirely eliminated from the equation, how the cost of nuclear would look.
For those looking to proven real-world solutions, the example of Ontario, (Niedersachsen, even if its local requirements might be met by wind, still burns coal) shows that we can eliminate the burning of coal using a mix of today's technology.
Slashdot Mirror
Intersex ... doesn't imply that variability is wrong
The meaning of that sentence (with the intervening clause left out to foreground the problem of its construction) is difficult to ascertain. Taking you literally I never said variability is wrong, nor that intersex implies so (whatever that might mean).
In case you meant to say that I'm claiming it is "wrong" to be Intersex, I claimed no such thing. What I wrote is that in complex systems things can go wrong. An example of things going wrong might be the effects of Thalidomide on normal limb development. To say of a person who has been affected by Thalidomide that they are wrong not to have arms, would be unconscionable. Or maybe you meant something else again?
What do you mean by mental, in relation to what?
The very next words of the sentence you quoted --"in contradistinction to sex which is matter" --ought to make that clear. As I wrote in my first post in this thread "[g]ender is defined by words (mind), sex by chromosomes (matter)."
Yes, yes, you think you're funny...
Not at all. I'm simply holding you to the point (the distinction between sex and gender) and ignoring the impertinent nonsense and impotent ad homimens
The point, of course ...
... was to correct your misunderstanding, as expressed in the statement: "[G]ender is defined based on the sex you had at birth. Do you have boy bits or girl bits." The rest was either fluff (talk about your "real world"), or irrelevant (who might go to which bathroom, what these people who identify as 'liberals' might believe, why reading or logical thinking is bad, etc.).
So once again: Do you now understand the distinction between sex and gender or does it go "right over your head?"
When you feel like looking up from a book and joining the real world ...
So you now do get the distinction between sex and gender? Or are you still lost there? I hope not.
If sex were defined by chromosomes, then most of the time we wouldn't know what sex anyone was because most of the time we don't know anything about what anyone's chromosomes
OK, sorry I see what you mean. Yes it would create problematic queues at public toilets ...
I don't entirely agree with your point about definition though. It is quite as difficult to define this anatomically (which is not immune from individual differences) as it is to overcome the problem of XY "women." Whether you call and XY with female morphology, "technically male," literally is a matter of definition (and for the avoidance of doubt I was never advocating a definition of sex by chromosomes as opposed to morphology (or any definition at all), that was your "nitpicking" which came close to grammar nazism in that context ... not that I'm immune to that).
No, gender is defined based on the sex you had at birth. Do you have boy bits or girl bits.
No, that is sex. Gender is (metaphorically) do you play with toy cars or do you play with dolls.
"Sex refers to the biological and physiological characteristics that define men and women. Gender refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviours, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for men and women. (WHO defn)"
The moment we theoretically separate the concept of 'gender' out from sex it becomes a logical possibility for biological sex and cultural gender to become inversely aligned.
Although both are rare, I'd suggest that gender [sic] isn't as binary as some simple-minded people choose to believe it is.
Gender is certainly not binary, sex (with only rare exceptions) is. The exceptions are rare and more to the point they are genetic mishaps. I don't think it's that useful to base a description of normal human morphology on co-joint twins.
There really is such a thing a "in between".
And you need to enclose in speech quotes because this (along with 'intersex') posits two sexes to be between.
There are women, who were born women... who just happen to have XY chromosomes and a genetic insensitivity to the androgens that that Y chromosome produces, so they develop as female anyway.
And there XXY in men, women and intersex people ... Yup in complex systems all sorts of things can go wrong. But this is beside the point which was that gender is inherently mental (in contradistinction to sex which is matter, your objection to the word 'chromosome' notwithstanding).
It's rare, but it happens, and if you pin sex to chromosomes, you end up having to call such people male; and also say that most of the time we have no fucking idea what sex anybody is.
Oh I don't mind being wrong on rare occasions. :) I don't follow what you mean about "most of the time" though, nearly all of the time genetics and anatomy work out just fine.
Sorry that makes no sense. Was there a point to that?
Sorry, AC... Gender is not defined by your thoughts.
Isn't it? I thought the point of the modern concept of 'gender' was to distinguish what exists at the level of narrative, from 'sex' which exists biologically? Gender is defined by words (mind), sex by chromosomes (matter). Or?
At least stupidity doesn't skip continents.
You are referring to the summary above I take it ... ;)
What has happened here is that a minor party (the Greens) have, almost on the spur of the moment, put forward a motion without any attempt to shore up political support in either House of Parliament, and --unsurprisingly, not being on the policy agenda of either major party, --said motion was not carried. There was never any intention by Sen Ludlam that his motion pass (he's not insane you know). This was done instead to highlight the issue (and perhaps his party's stance, though I note he was supported by minor parties of various political shades).
To conclude, as the summary does, that "[i]t appears that implementing comprehensive telephone and email retention in Australia may not have been the end of demands by law enforcement in the country" is either wildly misinformed, disingenuous, or outright insane. Now we probably haven't heard the end of demands by law enforcement in Australia, but the ineluctable defeat of this motion in the Senate has little to do with that.
Just as an aside, it isn't reverse discrimination. There is no such thing, logically speaking.
Inasmuch as the phrase 'reverse discrimination' more precisely describes a phenomenon than the more general 'discrimination' speakers will employ it.
As "logical" as you approach might be, it functions only by decontextualising discrimination. And by positing various discriminations as abstract and equal, "just as racist|sexist" one blind oneself to any systemic cultural biases which might operate against subaltern groups. It is not as though the prevalence of the biases that exist in a culture represent merely the sum total of individual decisions to be biased in any particular direction, any more than the prevalence of English use in anglophone countries can be explained by the sum total of individual choices made by speakers.
In contradistinction to this neat decontextualised logical analysis, an empirical study should turn up actual systemic discrimination where such discrimination exists. But it might turn up more. In a culture where it has become possible to appreciate systemic bias within that culture, individuals (and here we are more likely dealing with the deliberate and reflective decisions of individual members) may decide to (over)compensate for the systemic biases they perceive to operate. That particular form of discrimination, as distinct from others, is 'reverse discrimination' and one needs to account for the possibility that it is affecting observations.
Thus while it may not make much sense purely in the abstract, in real-word situations it has obviously become necessary to discriminate be 'discrimination' generally and 'reverse discrimination' in particular.
Perhaps, but the current method guarantees the opposite.
Not really. Simplicity and clarity, where they can be achieved are very much in the interest of practising lawyers. But anyway ...
The point of my original post was that in our rush to hate lawyers (which not surprisingly is characteristic of nations with levels of litigation) we forget what the lawyers have done, and continue to do, for us. Just yesterday I read this in Anna Funder's Stasiland.
The German Democratic Republic paid lip service to the institutions of democracy. There were district attorneys, whose job it was to administer justice, and lawyers, whose job it was to represent clients, and judges, whose job it was to pass judgment. There were, at least on paper, political parties other than the ruling Socialist Unity Party. But really there was just the Party, and its instrument, the Stasi. Judges often got their instructions from the Stasi which, in turn, passed them on from the Party --right down to the outcome of judgment and the length of the sentence. The connection of the Party, the Stasi and the law went from the ground up: the Stasi, in consultation with school principals, recruited obedient students, with an appropriately loyal attitude, for the study of law. I once saw a list of dissertation topics from the Stasi Law School at Potsdam, which included such memorable contributions to the sum of human knowledge as 'On the Probably Causes of the Psychological Pathology of the Desire to Commit Border Infractions'. There was no room for a person to defend themselves against the State because all the defence lawyers and judges were part of it ...
... [referring to a lawyer hired for her husband] If he had done nothing for Charlie while he was in prison, she said, he could at least find out how he died.
'Do I look insane to you?' the lawyer said, very cold. 'Do I? You don't truly think I am going to trot down there ans ask what happened, do you? For that you had better find yourself another fool, young lady.'
Miriam is upset again. Here, across the desk, was the face of the system itself: a mockery of a lawyer, making a mockery of her.
I understand it's hard when getting sued, especially if you are unrepresented, to be grateful that we live in a system where lawyers, not mockeries thereof, flourish.
And I would add ... the notion that restricting the drafting of laws to people devoid of legal training would be liable to generate clarity and simplicity, is optimistic in the extreme.
You seem to think [law] a technical subject like engineering that should only be handled by trained professionals.
It is a highly technical subject. Whether by formal education or autodidactically, acquiring the requisite level of expertise to be effective lawyer, for example to be a judge on the Supreme Court (to name a position from you proposed to ban lawyers), is non-trivial. Simplicity and clarity are devoutly to be wished for, but It's jejune to imagine that the law facilitating a society and an economy as complex as ours might be encompassed by a set of rules "simple and clear enough that everyone can understand them."
That would just ensure that only lawyers would understand the laws.
Understanding the laws is what lawyers are for. You wouldn't hire a hairdresser to design a bridge. When particular public offices --such as judges, attorneys general, government attorneys, prosecutors head of statutory quasi-prosecutorial bodies &c. --require understanding the law, (require in effect being lawyers), it should be remarkable to hire anyone other than a trained lawyer.
If you meant having lawyers as legislators would "ensure that only lawyers would understand the laws," I think rather it would ensure (or make it more likely) that the legislator understood the laws they were enacting. No matter who passes the laws (and no matter whether they understand the laws they've passed) it's lawyers (as judges are) who are going to be doing the understanding of those laws.
Actually it's more like prohibiting bank CEOs from become SEC chairman.
So long as they are ex-CEOs there is no necessary conflict of interest in that. But again, given the function of the SEC I would have thought that qualifications and experience in finance and securities law would be most appropriate to that role. Rather than prohibiting lawyers from holding any public office it might be desirable to require a law degree as a minimum qualification for many of them.
if you really have rights, you shouldn't have to pay unregulated agents to get those rights.
Unregulated agents? I thought we were talking about lawyers? Seriously, I don't know where you are, but here in Australia, lawyers are the most heavily regulated professionals of the lot.
Montesquieu, a lawyer himself, believed that under a just government no man should live in fear of another - which was progressive thinking for its time, and we've made great progress in this direction.
Yes! It was my point that we have achieved this by means of law.
I think, after more than two centuries of universal education, that we may be ready for every man to know their (true) rights and how to obtain them, on equal footing ...
So make everyone a lawyer. ;)
Your true rights are those rights you can get enforced, in your favour, in a court of law. Other "rights" are vapourware (until you can get them incorporated into the law such that the preceding applies).
They only appear to be "arcane tricks and manipulations" to those not on an equal footing. You are correct however that money still speaks too loudly in claiming "the most talented" lawyers.
Maybe you should consider going to law school you that you can "know [your] (true) rights and how to obtain them." Or you can save yourself the effort and hire someone else to do the job for you should the need arise (hopefully not).
See another reply re: New Zealand and how they are stumbling toward lawyer free nirvana.
They're not and they won't. It's simply that in the arena of personal injury they have opted for a universal tax-payer funded compensation scheme, which idea has much to recommend it. You're dreaming (as was OP) if you think that eliminates lawyers from the field.
It's not the concept of the law that is a problem, it is the manifestation of its agents
Or at least some of them. Which is why I wrote, if you want rights ... "you'll have to put up with lawyers I'm afraid."
I theory I agree, but the cost of lawyers has made it impractical the average person to get justice. Many people get little or no access to a lawyer ...
Socialist gloss: That's a problem of social equity rather than law or legal practice. What we need is a fairer distribution of social resources. Capitalist gloss: Obviously the supply of lawyers is unable to meet the requisite demand, ergo, we need more lawyers, not less! ;)
That is largely a problem of social equity rather than law or legal practice.
In most common law jurisdictions the default order is that the losing party meets the winning party's costs. That deincentivises the abuse of process whereby wealthy litigants without real prospects of success litigate merely to inflict financial pain on their victims. I understand this is not the case in the U.S., why not, I cannot fathom. Where I live, I believe, a lawyer is still prohibited from filing a claim or defence where there are "no reasonable prospects of success."
Also the fact that some firms work on a no-win/no-pay basis or tax-payer funded legal aid for the poor (which urgently needs more funding where I live) can mitigate against the evil you highlight.
I believe every person has the right to their legal rights defended to the same degree no matter what their financial status is.
Abso-fucken-lutely! That is what Law is meant to offer, the realities of existing in a world of vast financial inequality notwithstanding.
lawyers should be strictly forbidden from ever serving in public office
Prohibiting law graduates from serving on the legislature is like prohibiting computer science graduates being involved in software development.
Should lawyers be eliminated? Hell yes, by any means necessary.
Such as the institution of the explicitly lawless (and lawyer free) society envisaged by Orwell in 1984 (and approached by countless C20th dictatorships where there was (is) at best a simulacrum of law)? Or by the Hobbesian brutality we witness in those places where all state authority breaks down? Barbarism or The Rule of Whim are the known alternatives to the Rule of Law.
Don't forget what law is. It does not always look like it, but law is the technology by which our culture protects its individual members from the arbitrary exercise of power (whether that of the state of or powerful individuals). If you want rights and you want the individual liberty that law bestows, you'll have to put up with lawyers I'm afraid.
If there is no natural right to property then you do not own your body and organs and freedom because your natural right to property starts with yourself and extends to the fruits of your labour, as they are expression of your time on this planet.
And again, your rights to your own body and organs are those which the law bestows and nothing more. Thus for example NSW law (as I believe does the law of the several states) prohibits the sale of human tissue including one's own (e.g. blood, semen organs), which are all donated.
The idea that one has inherent ownership in one's body (and thus arguably the Lockean conception of property as the admixture of Labor and Nature generally) falls victim to a famous contradiction. Throughout the British C'th till 1833, and for some time thereafter in the US, there existed an entire class of people who famously were not owners of their own bodies, but rather owned. Now when the law sought to prohibit the trade in humans it thereby deprived everyone of one of the most important property rights: the ability to alienate that property. In short the contradiction is this, if by Nature or the Will of God, one was possessed of full proprietary rights to one's own body, one should be able to sell oneself into slavery, but where slavery is permitted to exist there are people who are born with no right to the property in their own bodies.
But again, a right is a protection against a government oppression
Which is again a nonsense, since many rights exist which are enforceable against non-government parties. These include property rights of all kinds, which you are unwittingly arguing do not exist.
A right is protection against government abuse and oppression, nothing else.
"Nonsense walking on stilts!" How are the various rights appurtenant to copyright ownership, for example, "a protection against government abuse and oppression?"
A right is that which you can successfully enforce against another party in a court of law. Of course that is the legal positivist view of what a right is, the natural law folks, among others, entertain different illusions. ;)
Thus (lawful) occupancy of land, for example, grants rights (enforced ultimately by the state, but for whom no rights could exist), inter alia the right to exclude from the property other parties (including, but subject to the terms of the lease, the non-occupant owner).
As it happens the standard (short-term) lease in NSW (and this is a matter for the states not the federal government), at least, gives the landlord and tenant the opportunity to come to an arrangement regarding subletting, as it give the landlord a right of refusal providing that right is exercised "reasonably" (see Clause 32)
I would definitely prefer a technology that is less risky and less centralised.
Who wouldn't? But risk management always involves trading off relative risks. One's attitude to the risks of nuclear energy should to be informed by the risks of human induced global warming. If Germany can deliver a 40% emissions cut by 2020 while carrying out a government mandated phase-out of nuclear power (and bearing in mind that in 2010 nuclear accounted for around 22% of Germany's grid), how much more could be achieved if nuclear were permitted to remain in the mix? As Fukushima shows, the damage wrought even by such a black-swan event is negligible in the face of the damage global warming can be expected to wreak.
I prefer setting realistic costs for natural resource usage, if via cap-and-trade or via fossil fuel taxes, to direct subsidies. If we let government pick winners ...
Quite.
Maybe nuclear power plants can be safely operated by modern first-world countries (maybe not). But do you really want to see Nigeria, Burma, Iran, Somalia, Colombia, Iran, North Korea and the Principality of Sealand [wikipedia.org] build breeder plants?
That does not seem the most persuasive argument in favour of 1st world countries shutting down their plants (potentially off-shoring them to poorer neighbours).
That's actually a good capitalistic approach. ... Of course, in my not-so-uninformed opinion, a nuclear industry wouldn't even exist if not for government-sponsored X,Y &Z.
So are you advocating a market based approach or a government sponsored approach? We can combine both, or course. It is the outcome, after all, that counts. Is your adherence to free-market purity such that you could not conscience any government sponsorship in reducing carbon emissions?
Whether or not nuclear energy requires additional government stimulus, it's an important, (some would argue necessary) source alongside other non-carbon energy sources. I do wonder though, if coal, gas and oil were priced entirely eliminated from the equation, how the cost of nuclear would look.
For those looking to proven real-world solutions, the example of Ontario, (Niedersachsen, even if its local requirements might be met by wind, still burns coal) shows that we can eliminate the burning of coal using a mix of today's technology.