Why government can't make people the best

[lawrocket 3]

I've recently been considering what I can do as an attorney and why clients can be unhappy even after a win. I've been doing some looking into it because, well, I want happy clients - even if they don't win.

I came upon something I remembered from college, Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. Now, Maslow's pyramid has actually become fairly well accepted from a dogmatic standpoint, and I've looked at it to figure out what laws can do, ergo, what government can do.

Answer? They can provide the baseline, but not the rest.

The base level of this pyramid is "physiological needs" - food, water, shelter, etc. A government program can ensure that people are fed and watered, and even put roofs over their heads. Okay, government can do that. In a family law perspective, we can help get support orders, etc., to help people with the "bare essentials."

Safety? Yes, the government can do some things to try and ensure safety and security. In my realm, restraining orders, etc., can be achieved. There can be some hope that safety is achievable by a government - ask GWB about this. He sure is trying.

The next step up is a "belonging" need. People feel the need to be loved, to feel as though they are a part of something. Government can help in some respect by foisting nationalism, civic pride, etc. Unfortunately, the best a government can do is give group identity and group pride to people - something which seems to me to cause problems with the final level.

This "belonging" is where I run into problems. Sure, I can help with the bare essentials, but I can't give a person a sense of belonging. I can't help much with the emotional problems of a family disintegrating, or with the issues related to other forms of problem solving I am involved in. Simple contract matters, etc., can cause a person's loss of sense of belonging. Indeed, everyone who sees a lawyer for help has lost that sense of belonging, as they are in a world for which they have no experience. how can a person "belong" in a world where they need an attorney to explain stuff?

The next level is a sense of esteem. Governments and laws cannot give this to people. Governments can compel people to respect the rights of others, but cannot compel true respect or esteem for others. They cannot make a person esteem another, and people are so different that what causes esteem for one may cause derision for another. To those who do not have the other bases accounted for, this leads to big issues.

Looking at it in my practice, I can only really help with small and shallow victories. A person is in a losing proposition in a divorce action. A person cannot simply move on after a divorce. I am questioning whether I have had some clients who were at all prepared for the ramifications of what occurred. Until they get their other needs taken care of, how can they be ready for the rigors of the small portion of life planning that I have done?

People cannot reach the final level - self-actualization - unless all the other needs are met. It's why addicts have such problems. It's why so many divorcees have problems. It why so many people in society have issues. You may think that they are doing well, but they are not. They may hav everything they wanted, but it's not enough.

Laws cannot provide self-actualization, esteem, respect, belonging - these all come from within and without. These come from being part fo something that others want you to be a part of, not that others are forced to let you be a part of.

It all comes from self-actualization. SELF-actualization. It's the thing about the man in the mirror - others look at you with reverence and esteem, but what does the man in the mirror have to say about what you've done?

There are things I can't do to help people. Trust me - it's tough for me to say that. But at least in the last few days I have been able to put soem plans into place. I can probably explain things to people better. I can probably look at people and say, "You need some other help that I can't give yyou, but I'll let you know who can help you bring out the best in you."

In my profession, I have become increasingly irritated at the state of laws and how ineffective the are. I'vew come to realize that there are things the law can't do. It's humbling but now more frustrating as I realize people try to impart societal change through laws. And I don't think that can happen.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[wmw999 2,602]

By helping to ensure that people have reasonably equal access to the levels that government can provide (which I agree are mainly the "enough" and some of the "safety" needs), at least people will be able to move on.

When you are constantly working on safety (whether real or perceived) or satiety (again, whether real or perceived), it's hard to think of the next level up.

Advertising and instant communication has done a good job of ensuring that our definitions of "safe" and "enough" are skewed.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Nightingale 0]

There's a lawyer down here that did the divorce proceedings for my friend's mom. Included in the divorce "package" was an agreement that both parties got certain concessions if they attended a year of family counseling (he got a small break on child support, she got the car). My friend said that her parents (who'd been making everybody's life hell) managed to learn some coping skills so they didn't put their kids in the middle of their issues. Apparently it was a deal that was brokered by the lawyers actually working together because both parents were really worried about their youngest daughter. Since the whole thing started, the kid had been in and out of mental hospitals for attempted suicides.

It's probably really rare to find two lawyers who are willing to work with each other and their clients to make something like this happen. The usual response when counseling is suggested is "other party won't go." but if you dangle a carrot in front of both noses, in this case it worked. Even with that, this was more of a mediation thing than a ruthless court battle (probably would've been a ruthless battle if not for the youngest kid's issues), and the people who could probably benefit the most from the counseling would be the ones that are out for blood in the courtroom.

I guess this is one case of a lawyer being able to look out for the "belonging" need, but the situation where people are really willing to learn how to get along and not put their kids through hell is probably pretty rare.

[mattaman 0]

Everything you just wrote was thinking, happy/unhappy people are looking for one thing, emotion. They want good feelings, not bad ones. When people are looking for their emotions outside themselves, they are complete slaves to external experiences. Emotions come from inside of us, not outside, people just give each other light and sound vibrations, the emotions come from the archtypes that are inborn patterns activated by the images that come through the optic nerve. When an image comes through that activates the archetype, or childhood stored memory on that gladular structure, that part of the brain starts to send out its neurotranmitters, and we experience those as feelings. The problem is that when we do not understand this process, we externalize this whole process as coming from the outside world, this is called being "attatched," or symbiotically being attatched. Its also called ego dystonic. Most people have no fucken clue what ego means. Ego means consciousness, and it means that when we actually start to arrive in this world, to reach a state of actualization, we start to understand inner and outer, and we learn about our filters inside, and we stop reacting to the external environment, and we are able to activate our emotions/energies from inside, and not allow our energies to be depleated by external events, this is when your ego arrives, its the part of the brain that knows inner and outer. Most people have no clue about when I've just wrote, they have no ego, they are bound up still acting out there family of origin times that remain the template for their lives, pleasing the rules, father, and trying to seek out love, the mother.
Yes there is transpersonalism, and the well goes way deeper than I just described. But if someone doesn't understand this, they have no clue about anything else, regulation of conscious experience comes from the inside first, healthy children know this, stop accepting the world of illusion, maya, as reality.
This brought to you from the LAW firm of Budda, Christ, Freud, and Jung

Those stuck in maya, seek to be seen.

[Balls 0]

Have you read "The Law" by Frederick Bastiat. It's an old book and a fairly quick read (about 75 pages or so).

I think it does a great job of putting into perspective what the law really should and shouldn't do.

It's a really good book, I've read it 3 or 4 times.

----------------------------------------
....so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat."

[nanook 1]

Just remember not to take the Hiearchy of Needs Model as gospel. It is after all, a theory that has not been proven. It won't work most of the time as it can't work with cross-cultural comparisons and the fact that people jump the levels a lot. I don't think it is used as a tool in any psychological study

_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln