Socrates - 04 October 2007 09:29 AM

tstarkey –
I’m not a fan of our judicial system, civil or criminal, and I’m not suggesting that they don’t have problems. But in fairness to both of them, they are market driven systems that are more of a barometer of societal decay than they are problem solvers. No matter what they do, somebody isn’t going to be happy. Victims want justice and criminals want mercy, two opposite goals. As for family court, people who seek redress in that forum have all too often repeatedly exercised very poor judgment in their personal relationships, family planning and lifestyles choices generally. Having made a mess of their own lives and not wanting to suffer the consequences of their bad choices, they want the courts to erase those consequences. When the courts don’t give them what want, they become angry at the system. I think it’s fair to ask if people who have committed crimes or who have made a mess of their personal lives are qualified to pass judgment on whatever branch of the judicial system they find themselves in contact with.
Respectfully S.

Socrates,
Forgive me for any misuse of words, but I’m not among the most educated people in the world. I was thinking of providing a long dissertation in response to your opinions and the insight you have given me, but I’m not going to do that now because I would not know what to say.  However, please consider the following quote which I have borrowed from Thomas Jefferson. I hope he would not mind as many of the opinions I now hold, I developed though my personal experience with the Highlands County Family Court, my work experience, and the reading of his letters.

“Crista bene, non si muove,” said the Italian, “let him who stands well, stand still.”

Now, based on your comments, I have an opinion of how you stand. And, I think it is equally as clear how I stand. I’m not going to directly address each sentence in your comment here and this will not be the last comment I make on the subject of this blog. My comments are as follows

I don’t think our judicial system is a “fan” sport. Although, I think the Judges and lawyers may think so because as I understand they keep track of their wins and losses. And, this to me seems like it should be an irrelevant issue, particularly in family court, considering that they cannot pick their clients.

With regard to “fairness,” a few years back, I read a quote in this very paper from a lawyer ridiculing the concept of fairness, inferring that this was not an issue, that the issue was the law.

With regard to “market driven systems”, I think the Courts “drive the market,” like the Hunt Brothers drove the silver market in 1979.

With regard to “barometer,” I think you should substitute facilitator, expediter, catalyst, or conduit.

With regard to “societal decay,” I think you should substitute “societal evolution.”

With regard to “problem solving”, I’m sure its clear I think they create as many as they solve. Our citizens, including our children suffer as a result. Our generation, our children, and our grandchildren will pay the price for today’s failures of our family court.

With regard to that portion of your comment that begins with, “As for family court...” and ends with, “...angry at the system,” I guess my only comment is that nobody’s perfect and everyone gets mad sometimes.

As far as the last sentence goes, my question would be does it matter. I think what matters is whether they have a valid point, and something worthwhile to offer. Ultimately, the reader of this blog will be the Judge.

Lastly, I looked over your comment carefully and never saw the word “children.”

tstarkey -

Sorry if you didn’t find my comments responsive to your concerns. I didn’t use the word “children” because children was not the subject of your question. The subject of your question was “Is our family court meeting its’ responsibilities. . .”

The word “Fan” is short for fanatic, a devoted admirer of something. I only used it to save space. I wasn’t suggesting the judicial system was a “sport”. But reconsidering it in the context that you used the word “sport”, now I’m not so sure. In that context a sport is a contest (trial) in which one opponent (plaintiff) engages another opponent (defendant or respondent) in an arena (courtroom) in an attempt to prevail against them. That sport has “rules” (laws) and “referees” (judges). And there is usually some sort of prize at stake (jail, fines, property, custody, alimony, child support, etc). With that in mind, I guess the judicial system really is a sport after all.

I can’t substitute “evolution” for “decay” because I don’t believe in evolution. However, I do believe in devolution, so I’ll meet you half way and substitute “societal devolution” for societal decay.

Finally, the family court system was never intended to be a surrogate parent. People who engage in sexual intercourse are totally responsible for the physical and emotional wellbeing of the children that result from those unions. Parents who selfishly refuse to make the enormous personal sacrifices required to raise healthy and well adjusted children are morally and ethically unqualified to evaluate the performance of the judicial system. If parents don’t want the courts to use the Alexandrian Solution on the Gordian Knots they have made of their lives and the lives of their children, they’d better grit their teeth and meet their divinely appointed familial obligations.

Respectfully S

Socrates,
With the assistance you have provided me through you excellent communication skills, I am getting ready to publish here in this blog one principle that I firmly believe and will defend that goes to the heart of this blog.

However, just as a side note, surely you believe that in any given species, that those members with the physical and mental characteristics most fit to survive in their environment are more likely to survive and to procreate, while those who do not possess these characteristics are less likely to survive and procreate, thus not passing along these “less fit” characteristics to the next generation. And, as this process continues over generation after generation, that a greater and greater percentage of the population of the species actually possesses these “most fit” characteristics. Thus, an evolution of the physical and mental characteristics of the species occurs over the generations, as such the species evolves from one form to another. To me, this seems logical and does not in my opinion contradict religious beliefs.

I also would like to say that I’ll respond in greater detail directly to your comment soon.

The term for what you describe is natural selection, the foundation of Darwinian evolutionary theory, and it is totally incompatible and irreconcilable with most religious doctrines throughout the world. Karl Popper, 1902 – 1994, was an agnostic and one of the most highly respected and influential philosophers of science of the 20th century. Popper stated “evolution is not a scientific theory but is a metaphysical research program”. I agree. I consider Darwinian evolution to be unreasonable, illogical or unscientific. Human’s have attributes and abilities that other species do not. Those attributes and abilities give humans an accountability and responsibility for their behavior that other species do not have. That is why humans have judicial systems and other species do not. So, we’re back to square one.

Socrates,
I’m learning more and more from you all the time. Thanks for spending some of your time here. I looked up Dr. Popper on the internet and combined that search with Darwin. What I think I found was that he actually thought there was much of value in Darwin’s work. He also thought there was much value in the concept of “natural selection.” On the most basic level, he did observe that bacteria through successive generations adapted to a “penicillin-infested environment.” He also strongly believed that scientific principles could be applied to the social sciences and felt that it could be used to predict future events in society. I have learned that his concern was that it was called a “theory”, he did not like that it was labeled a “theory.” he felt that all theories, should possess the characteristic that it can be tested in the laboratory. Since Darwin’s theory of evolution cannot be fully tested in the laboratory, he did not believe that it should be called a theory. He thought the entire theory which attempted to explain the “origin” of life was a “meta-physical research programme.” But, he also that that the testing of"natural selection” was a valuable research program. Thanks for enlightening me on that subject.

Thanks. I’m no expert, but I’m glad you’re finding this helpful. But we’ve drifted from your original proposition and you are now in a dilemma. You proposed that there are problems within the family court system. But now you propose the validity of Darwinian evolution which means you believe life arose spontaneously and evolved by natural selection without assistance from any conscious external power or moral agent. That means right and wrong and good and evil are meaningless and worthless concepts. For all practical purposes, whoever has the power to enforce their will can declare themselves right, and all opposing views wrong. Since the family courts have power to enforce their will upon you, you are wrong in your belief that there are problems within the courts. Right?

Socrates,
In all fairness to Dr. Popper, please consider the following quote from Dr. Popper:
“...the simple biblical explanation of human existence does much greater justice to freedom, moral responsibility, equality, the dignity of man, conscience, truth and other values than any explanation based upon the survival of the fittest.”
In summary, I understand that he doubted Darwin’s explanation of the “Origin” of life while he believed and himself observed that “natural selection” does take place, and I believe he would think this scientific concept could be applied to the social sciences and could be used to predict future events, a concept which for me serves as the basis for the views that I have on the subject of this blog.
When I mention the word “evolution,” I’m using it in the sense of a change from one form to another, On the topic here, I believe that the conduit for this change is “natural selection,” or a scientific principle applied to an area of the social sciences. I believe Dr. Kopper would agree this would be a reasonable application.
The view that you have described in your most recent comment is a Machiavellian view and one with which I strongly disagree. This view more clearly described in the book, “The Prince” (1532), by Niccolo di Bernardo dei Machiavelli, has as its’ theme the following belief:
All means may be resorted to for the establishment and preservation of authority—the end justifies the means—and that the worst and most treacherous acts of the ruler are justified by the wickedness and treachery of the governed.”
Socrates, I’m more concerned that you have this view based on your prior comments, and I believe that the Courts maintain this view based on my observations and experience. However, through this discussion you are reinforcing my prior beliefs and actually strengthen the arguments that I will soon make.

T -
Your arguments for natural selection and evolution are old ones and have been debunked too many times to waste space by doing it again here. We can agree to disagree. You are wrong in your assumption that I believe the ends justify the means. I do not. But since you obviously reject the concept of divine authority, I’m just trying to figure out what moral and ethical scale you used to determine that the family courts have problems that need to be fixed, and what makes your scale more accurate and reliable than the scale used by the courts. Generalized complaints without specific details aren’t helpful. Perhaps you can provide specific details so we can see exactly what it is you object to.
S.

Socrates - 07 October 2007 08:09 PM

T -
Your arguments for natural selection and evolution are old ones and have been debunked too many times to waste space by doing it again here. We can agree to disagree. You are wrong in your assumption that I believe the ends justify the means. I do not. But since you obviously reject the concept of divine authority, I’m just trying to figure out what moral and ethical scale you used to determine that the family courts have problems that need to be fixed, and what makes your scale more accurate and reliable than the scale used by the courts. Generalized complaints without specific details aren’t helpful. Perhaps you can provide specific details so we can see exactly what it is you object to.
S.

Socrates,
Ranchers and breeders of other animals, and farmers use “selection” all the time. Ranchers take their prized bull and breed this animal with the females to create the offspring with the qualities they most desire. I believe farmers and those who cultivate plants do the same. “Natural selection,” I think, simply means that “nature” has its way of selecting out certain qualities that perpetuates the existence of the species with the catalyst for this change being the environment in which it lives. Do you think that everyone who believes that “natural selection” is possible or in fact true does not believe in the existence of “divine authority?” Please allow me to put aside that concept for now.
It was not that component of the Machiavellian view, “the ends justify the means,” that I was concerned you believed, but it was the view that the governed possess the characteristics of being wicked or treacherous. So as not to waste space, I’ll not copy and paste those comments you have made to support my concern, but they are contained in earlier entries in this blog. I just don’t believe that, and do not think it is an accurate characterization of those who come before our Family Court in particular.
I am very close to completing my work and making my arguments for why I believe that our Family Court is not meeting its’ responsibilities to the parents that come before it, the children whose lives are dramatically affected by it, and to our society which bears the cost for it. And, I have used neither a moral nor an ethical scale to measure it.

Oh, and one other thing regarding that Machiavellian view, when the citizens at that time read that book they were outraged. And, he didn’t get the job.

T –
A rancher using his knowledge of dominant and recessive genetic traits to raise better livestock has no relationship to natural mutations which invariably are negative changes. Cows, bred for certain qualities, are still cows. But a man is not an ape and never was. I think people who attempt to reconcile evolution with ethical philosophy are wasting their time. Machiavelli did not believe “the ends justify the means” and neither do I. People (including those who do the governing) are wicked or treacherous to varying degrees. Some of those people choose to exercise self discipline and self restraint. Others do not. If we were not wicked or treacherous, we wouldn’t need governments or laws to regulate our behavior. And we certainly wouldn’t need courts to mediate our disputes or threaten us with penalties for our misbehavior. I know the courts are imperfect. I’m only pointing out that the people who find themselves in court usually do not possess the moral or ethical loftiness that qualify them critique the courts. If they did, they wouldn’t be there to begin with. I’m curious. How are you are going to make a moral or ethical measurement of court performance without using some moral or ethical scale to measure it by? As for Machiavelli, whatever his human failings were, he is still remembered and spoken of. The citizens who were outraged by him have long since been forgotten.
S.

Socrates,
I think we have found some common ground. While the cow is still a cow, the 5th generation of the herd contains much more of the desirable characteristics than the 1st generation, would you agree with that?
With regard to a “moral or ethical measurement,” there may be a or moral or ethical component to it, but more importantly, I think the performance of family court, specifically, but also our criminal justice system can be “quantified.” In regards to Machiavelli, history is replete with philosophers with which most in our society would strongly disagree such as V.I. Lenin, Benito Mussolini, Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, and Adolph Hitler, to name a few.
I know I soon need to “go out on that limb” but for now, please consider the following:
“...our present character remains, of order, industry and love of peace, and as it would be, by the proper spirit of the people. But it is while it remains such, we should provide against the consequences of its deterioration. and let us rest in the hope that it will yet be done, and spare ourselves the pain of evils which may never happen.” - Thomas Jefferson - 1816

T -
Actually you’re covering too much ground too quickly and getting too far from your original questions for a simple person like me to keep up. Evolution, natural selection, agriculture and animal husbandry? Slow down! Machiavelli, Jefferson, Lenin, Mussolini, Marx, Engels and Hitler are dead. We might be more useful to the living if we let the dead rest wherever they happen to be and deal with your original questions of “Is our family court meeting its’ responsibilities to our parents, our children, and to society? If not, what can be done to correct these problems?” and my original request for clarification of “please describe exactly what you think those responsibilities are and who you think empowered the court with those responsibilities.”
S

Socrates,
I have observed the following in this conversation, and by making this observation I guess you are realizing success in your ultimate desire to at least temporarily send this conversation in another direction.  You brought up Dr. Popper, thus elevating the level of the conversation but through a lack of knowledge or a desire to win, you misrepresented his views. When I do my homework, clarify his views, and discover that he in fact supports my rationalization of what I have personally experienced, and, what I have observed both through the media and in my former workplace, you don’t talk about him any more but continue on with you original belief. Finally, when we find the common ground that, the physical and mental characteristics of the cow (individual) and the herd (society) do change over the generations, and that catalyst is some external force. So, I begin to think we can continue this conversation on the higher level.
Specifically, I had been getting to a refutation of the view that, “...they (civil and criminal courts) are market driven systems that are more of a barometer of societal decay...” My view is that, using your phraseology, they are driving the market of societal evolution, and doing so in a profoundly negative fashion. Thus, they are creating an enormous burden which our present society and future generations must bear. This negative evolution is not only unaffordable financially which is measurable, but is resulting in a deterioration of our moral character, which is incalculable. I’m taking the Jeffersonian view that the structure of our government was flawed to begin with, as the Judicial Branch of our government was the least republican of the three branches by far, and that our government was conceived by our Founding fathers to be a republican form of government. In other words, we are now seeing the “pains of evils” which Thomas Jefferson hope would never occur.
However, in your desire to win, you want to change the subject back to what amounts to a request for clarification of an imperfect question. I clearly have proposed that Family Court specifically, but now that you bring it up, our Florida legal system in general is beset with systemic problems, some of which are structural, and that these defects are contributing in no small degree to societal “decay,” (the evils).