Comments

  1. Rick Z says

    I wish I could share Professor Pipes’ confidence. It would be nice to live in a just and rational world, but personal experience has taught me that wars and revolutions bring out the worst in and of us, and the neo-Jacobin Muslim Brotherhood embodies, and is comprised of, the organizing principles, tactical doctrines and leadership that reflects both. 

  2. suek says

    This is an interesting analysis of the problem in Egypt that I hadn’t heard expressed before.  I’d use a link to the original article, but Betsy didn’t post one…
     
    http://betsyspage.blogspot.com/2011/02/importance-of-legal-system.html
     
    After you read the article, consider _why_ this legal morass exists – is it due to ineptness, just simply being used to do things because “Daddy did it thataway”  or corruption?  I don’t know – but I wonder.  I suspect “Daddy did it thataway” and corruption.  There’s a reason to put contracts in writing.  No matter how well-intentioned people are, it’s easy for two people to have different underlying concepts of what is intended or expected and not realize that they have a difference.  Putting things in writing often can clarify the matter.  Unless one of them intends to deceive – then all bets are off!

  3. SADIE says

    suek
     
    Interesting link. There seems to be two separate systems operating. One for the regime and the other for the masses in the cities and villages. Arab countries and third world countries have always operated under the ‘baksheesh’ system (kickbacks and corruption) and those arrangements never get into a written contract. Egypt doesn’t produce anything and depends on tourism for income. Other than Cairo and Alexandria, most of the country is … I want to say rural, but rural doesn’t fit in the way we would use the word explaining areas of the states. It’s beyond dirt poor – call it sand poor. I don’t think goat herders have any need for a guaranteed legal system, they just conduct business in their local village areas. It would take a century to fix the neglect ‘if’ there was the will and a system in place to correct course.
     
    Without a vision, one stumbles blindly into the future.

  4. suek says

    >>I don’t think goat herders have any need for a guaranteed legal system, they just conduct business in their local village areas.>>
     
    If I understand you, you’re saying that if you have _nothing_, then the only legal system you need is to punish people who kill or steal.  If you have oodles, then you don’t need a legal system because all you need is to know the right people and in the end, it’s who I know vs who you know if we have a problem.  And since we both know who each of us know, we can probably just solve the problem without a problem!  And _certainly_ without a legal system!
     
    And what the author of the article is saying is that the economy of Egypt has grown so that while the “nothing” people still don’t need a legal system, the people who have _something_, but not “oodles” need a system other than the “who do you know” system.  There are too many with _something_ and not enough connections to the top.
     
    Interesting.  Which comes first…chick or egg??  Will the legal system come with a more prosperous economy, or do you need the legal system to _permit_ a more prosperous economy.  Gotta think about that one.  I suspect that we in the US were very lucky in having a country that was relatively empty, and having founders who saw the necessity of setting up a legal system that would permit for growth of the economy.
     
    In fact…every time I get to thinking that _THAT_ is the most important facet of our Constitution, another facet comes along that makes me wonder if all points aren’t equal!  At the moment, my “most important” for economic health and prosperity are private property ownership and equal justice under the law.  Thus I was most disturbed by the Kelo decision, and consider our economic woes today to be due to lack of enforcement of laws on financial institutions.  No enforcement = no laws.

  5. SADIE says

    It’s a two fold solution as with most countries – the legal system and the economic one. It seems to me that each of them benefit the wealthiest and the better connected the most. It’s the legal system that can balance out the chasm between the have and have nots.
     
    Of course, if the legal system (even ours) favors neither a just legal or economic system and as we have seen with ‘activist social judges’ decisions – than neither system is functioning as intended. Of course, we do have representation, elections and all the good stuff, but I am less sure year by year, election to election, if it’s making much of a difference. To be honest, there’s a lot of fish in the sea, but if they’re all carp … what then. How many times have we voted for candidate ‘a’ only to find out he/she is candidate ‘b’ once elected.
     
    suek…you make a good point and an entire thread worthy of a question:  What’s a citizen to do when laws are not enforced or tweaked to favor the ‘connected’. You just know, I am thinking of ‘waivers’ and not just regarding health reform, but even someone like Geithner, who oops a daisy didn’t pay his fair share of taxes.

  6. says

    The legal system in America has become overly complicated, favoring those who specialize in the law. Those who have political ambitions often are lawyers, because those who can read, understand, and manipulate the law are given an advantage.
     
    The more complex the legal code, the more disadvantaged average individuals are. If you can’t even understand the law you are supposed to be breaking without paying good money to the lawyer class, then who is really in control here.
     
     

Trackbacks

Leave a Reply