A paradigm shift is the understated name given to the effort and the procedures needed to move from one way of doing things on a grand scale to an arguably better way of accomplishing the same thing. There is always much opposition to such changes. And when an entire way of life is the issue at hand, the load is heavier, the opposition is stiffer, and the way forward is formidable. Such is the case with Economics for the Common Good. To make the case for why this new paradigm is needed will require visionaries who can rise above the fray and who can articulate with pure angelic wisdom why such a change is in the best interests of all who seek a better way of life.

I am instantly reminded of something in the news. Yesterday, Donald Trump criticized Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel for making Germany Russia’s captive because Germany must rely on Russia to supply a large gas pipeline as one of its major energy sources. While true , he completely omitted the much more enlightening fact that Germany also leads the world in implementing widescale renewable energy sources. I have already noted his limited ability to gather and to make good use of facts, a very low-level mental skill. But when he has a script, a teleprompter, and a large stage, he has a huge advantage in a public debate where mental instability is often a useful weapon. In contrast, a true visionary is a problem-solver, and that necessarily invokes the higher-level skills of persuasion—analysis, evaluation, and creativity. And so, I will try to put aside name-calling and mud-slinging in favor an adult mindset.  And I will rely on great thinkers, past and present.

In this essay I intend to introduce a change needed by the Common Good that has not been addressed. It is the legal system, a major obstacle to change. How to change the present system is at the core of the Common Good.

The Common Good seeks to define and to install an economic system that reaches out and includes everyone and all the basic needs of our society while staying focused on our fundamental values: progressivism, justice, security, liberty, and posterity. These values are clearly enunciated in the Preamble to our Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

I am not going to make a legal argument—one constrained by laws, precedent, and myriad legal opinions; rather a more expansive logical argument that relies on “what is” (positivism), and “what could be” (normativism), and how the two are connected by our fundamental values. Put another way, my focus is on outcomes, not on processes. Legal scholars know much more than do I about precedents and processes and all the minutia of laws, past and present. But I concede nothing to them about knowing what constitutes a just society. Here is one more clarification: Whether any law adheres to our core values is not just a matter of opinion better left to those trained in law; they are matters of living, and sweating, and doing, and suffering by those who live in our society. I am referring, in general, to the young, the elderly, the poor, the disabled, and the otherwise disadvantaged more so than the strong and the advantaged.

The Scottish philosopher, David Hume, made a brilliant observation some 260 years ago. He noted that there was no logical reason to accept any argument just because it would improve the status quo. We know his observation as the “is/ought” argument. He said there is no logical connection between “what is” and “what ought to be.” On a practical level, he meant that it isn’t good enough merely to show that you have a better idea worthy of adoption in place of the status quo, and thus to believe you have won the argument simply by presenting it. Why? Because there could be 10 or 50 better ways to proceed. Tell me more! he insisted. Tell me why your way is the best way.

And so, it is with all arguments that would take us from what we are doing now, to how we ought to be doing things tomorrow. On logical grounds, we cannot move so easily from a positive argument to a normative argument. The asserter must make the case for how the two different positions are connected. That case can be made, especially when we appeal to our core values. For example, when we want to transition from an old law that is unjust to a new law that is just. And that is because justice is one of our core values that is cradled in our Declaration of Independence and is stated with clarity in our Constitution. Can we find a better outcome than one cradled in justice?

Let us take the hypothetical case of a proposed law that would take money from the very poor and give it to the very rich. Perhaps a team of legal scholars would opine that such a law follows legal precedent, it is well-steeped in our history, and it is enclosed in language and norms that they find nicely nuanced in law and tradition. They would likely deem it to be Constitutional because it meets all their tests of process.

But if we were to put the same issue to scrutiny by a team of scientific scholars well-versed in random sampling, and with far better methods for finding reality out in society, and they found that 75 percent of the population was convinced that the same proposed law would violate their collective sense of justice. What recourse would society have under our present legal system to have a stronger voice in the outcome?

History, precedence, tradition, and legal minds tell us that “we are a nation of laws,” and we must abide by “the rule of law.” Who is better qualified than lawyers to make those determinations? The logical counter argument might be: “But where is the justice in taking from the very needy and giving to the very wealthy? We challenge your pre-conceived notion resting on precedent and process as a violation of the core value of justice as stated in our Constitution, and on the scientific evidence that the proposed law would aggravate an injustice among an already aggrieved population. Further, we have grounded our argument in logic, in the Constitution, and in experience. We maintain that those who live or have lived in poverty understand poverty much more convincingly than do those who have not lived there. Justice demands laws with demonstrably just outcomes, not on laws that serve the narrow interests of process.

This is but one abbreviated example of why we, the people, need a greater voice in legal decisions that affect us. There are thousands of others. Does a single judge, or nine justices, relying on law have greater wisdom than does 60 or 90 percent of our population who rely on logic and experience? Black robes, diplomas, and tradition are not elements of justice.

I therefore submit that decisions that affect justice, tranquility, defense, liberty, and our posterity are better made by a random sample of residents than by legal scholars. In a new order of the Common Good, we need to put many more vetted citizens into decision-making roles when those decisions are binding on us all. Let the lawyers handle the procedures that get us to the brink of a just decision, but no further.