![\"\"](\"https:\/\/synapse9.com\/issues\/images\/log_jam.jpg\" "\\"Where")
<\/p>\n
I\u2019ve been watching that \u201cnegotiation\u201d around all kinds of environmental policy since the 70\u2019s.\u00a0\u00a0 Both my patience with looking for a solution to it, as well as my impatience with others not seeing how it guts their own purposes, have had the same effect.\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0We\u2019re still firmly on track for a true dead end growth induced societal collapse.<\/p>\n
I expect you\u2019d also see our problem as kind of \u201clogjam\u201d, but might describe it differently.\u00a0\u00a0 I\u2019d love to hear how you think it works, but be as specific as you can to make it constructive.<\/p>\n
What I\u2019m really suggesting is that we need to find a weak point in it. \u00a0\u00a0There\u2019s one I\u2019ve mentioned before, though \u00a0I suspect others probably saw it \u201cnot so important\u201d.\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0I\u2019ve looked at as a deep weak point that is sort of \u201cundefendable\u201d. \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0The logjam seems to depend on deceits, that put the burden of proof on the person being deceived, against paid professionals using a \u201ccatch me if you can\u201d approach.<\/p>\n
I think there\u2019s a way to sort of reverse that, while also connecting financial law to the natural world.\u00a0\u00a0 That would be using the principle of fiduciary duty as an obligation to others to manage their affairs in their interests.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0Fiduciary law is stated in just such broad terms, worded in natural language rather than legalese.<\/p>\n
So naturally it would become an obligation of fiduciaries to not be misleading about the interests of others, and to correct themselves if found to have been.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 That\u2019s not our current standard of truth in advertising, or in court or in business practice, but more \u201ccatch me if you can\u201d.<\/p>\n
I think what might break the logjam is that phrase, \u201cnot be misleading\u201d, taken as a natural obligation for fiduciaries that depends on whether others understand what they\u2019ve been told.\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0It would seem to apply to political campaign finance by corporations too, for example, to not sponsor deception.<\/p>\n
As it refers to the natural interests of others it would seem testable in court under tort law too.\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0So if there\u2019s a lawyer out there who is also frustrated by our \u201cracing in place\u201d as a way of responding to our mounting disruption of the planet\u2026, I\u2019d like to spend an hour or two talking about the range of ways this could be approached.<\/p>\n
Of course, I\u2019d also like to hear any other ideas. \u00a0 \u00a0 ~~~~~~~~~~~Phil<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
On our largely ineffective defense of the earth and of our own prosperity My critical reading of events is that \u201ceverything\u2019s on hold\u201d, speaking broadly about our need respond to how we\u2019re altering the earth.\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0As I see it, for as long as I\u2019ve been watching every \u201chopeful response\u201d that gets made has been gutted, … Continue reading What would release the logjam?<\/span>