Kort Explores conundrums of the human condition

No society can be absolutely free. Anarchy will not support the most basic infrastructure necessary for civilized existence. Any functioning society must maintain at least basic prohibitions against murder, robbery, etc. The extent to which these prohibitions are understood and voluntarily respected by the population determines the actual level of "freedom".

The defacto policy of America has in the past been to rely heavily on voluntary compliance with the laws of the land by the vast majority of the citizens. Crime (noncompliance with the law) is newsworthy solely because it is a relatively rare occurrence when compared to the overwhelming voluntary compliance by most citizens. Even those citizens who chose to violate some laws, generally observe most others.

It would seem a reasonable assumption that in order to voluntarily comply with something, you must first be able to understand what constitutes compliance. In order to abide by a law, you must be able to understand the law. In fact, it is a basic assumption of our legal system that ignorance of the law is not a defense. We are obliged to comply with all the laws our government creates regardless whether we understand them, or are even aware of their existence.

Our highest laws - the constitution and bill of rights - were written in clear and simple language with the obvious intention that they be easily understood by the average citizen. The original drafters understood that you cannot own what you do not understand, and they intended that the citizens should own their government not the other way around.

(Unfortunately, we currently have 9 black robed political appointees who seem to believe the "hidden text between the lines" that only they are able to discern is more important than the elegant words penned boldly for all to see. But this is a failing of the flawed individuals in our courts and legislatures today not of the original truths contained in the clearly understandable prose.)

One of the unique aspects of our current political system is the concept of creating laws that the average citizen can not even understand let alone comply. We increasingly suffer from a fiction that unless a document is written in obscure legalize, it can't possibly be clear and concise enough to be legally enforceable. And since we no longer understand the laws that form the basis of our government, we in a very real sense no longer own our government.

Over the years our laws and lives have increasingly become the property of a "high priesthood" of attorneys. This has the effect of shifting control to those knowledgeable in the secret language of the priesthood and away from the average citizen who must devote most of his attention to the productive efforts that support the civilization. The average citizen is increasingly denied access to the law and must pay tribute to this high priesthood in order to gain guidance on how he might live a lawful life. Every problem in the citizen's life now seems to involve paying tribute to attorneys in one way or another.

One might suspect that a major problem in our legal system is that so many of our legislators are or have been lawyers. They in turn write and pass laws that only other lawyers can understand.

A cynical person might look at our current system with legislatures filled with lawyers who pass laws that the citizens must pay other lawyers to interpret, as a make work system that functions primarily for the benefit of lawyers.

Lawyers have made the court system so expensive and unpredictable, those seeking a reasonable and honest resolution to their valid problems have been forced to abandon the court system and seek outside mediation or arbitration. Mediation and arbitration have become well established institutions themselves with accreditation and standards associations, formal guidelines, etc. Any time an alternative becomes a growth industry, you have to suspect there's something wrong with the original.

It would appear to me that one potential solution to our problem is already at least partly at hand. In order to practice law, Attorneys become officers of the court and are subject to sanction by the Judicial Branch of government. Under the separation of powers, the agents of one branch of government may not concurrently serve in another branch. Supreme Court Justices are (regrettably) appointed for life. Why can't we consider anyone who has ever been an attorney to be an officer of the court and agent of the Judicial Branch for life and thereby ban them from meddling in the Legislative and Executive branches altogether?