PART 2
“THE CODE JUST FORMALIZES WHAT MOST ADHERE TO OUT OF COMMON SENSE. YOU MENTION LAWYERS ETHICS, BUT IN ANY COURTROOM OR GOVERNMENT PROCEEDING THERE IS A HIGH LEVEL OF DECORUM, AS THEY TRY TO UPHOLD THE DIGNITY OF THE PROCEEDINGS/PROFESSION, EVEN IF THERE IS SOME UGLINESS, AS YOU MENTION.” Jeff B.
I prefer the “code” of “common sense” framed by the Founding Fathers. I wouldn’t doubt they had greater minds, perhaps the greatest collection of American minds ever assembled in one place, spending more time thinking about what provides the “greatest quantity of human happiness” than those who framed the architect’s codes. Your “common sense” believes restrictions on free speech can and should be defended; I do not because of history’s clear lessons.
For the record, the “greatest quantity of human happiness.” quote isn’t from Dr. Mackenzie, but John Adams’, THOUGHTS ON GOVERNMENT, about 155 years earlier!
I ran these posts past a retired lawyer friend, and he focused on your flawed reasoning about “ethics”. He explained the code-of-ethics for lawyers is to protect clients from bad lawyers. Bad Lawyers are weeded out to protect the public and elevate the standards of the Bar Association. The Hippocratic Oath serves the medical profession in the same manner.
That is why Bill Clinton, Impeached President of the United States was disbarred (
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/scotus011001.html) …for lying under oath (just one of many felonious misdeeds), a serious ethics violation, and a felony for every other American.
There is no way to disbar a golf architect if the rules exist as is, and restricts open competition vital for higher standards which the ASGCA claims to be in their interest. This harms the…investor.
About “decorum”: In a court room decorum isn’t there to be a hindrance to identifying truths, regardless of how offensive they may be.
I believe my posts have stuck unemotionally to the facts, a goal I strive for with each post and bit of literature I create. Check my posts, web page and writings.
”IT REALLY DOESN'T DO YOU ANY GOOD, WHEN COMPETING FOR A PROJECT, TO SELL HOW BAD THE OTHER GUY IS!” Jeff B.
“YOU CAN CRITIQUE MY WORK PUBLICLY ALL YOU WANT, BUT IT USUALLY COMES OFF AS SELF SERVING, NOT PUBLIC SERVING.” Jeff B.
This comes across as a veiled accusation that I bad mouth individuals when vying for projects, a false image (intended to mislead?) of the highest order.
When I am contacted by an interested party, I have no idea who the others may be (could care less), and I have a lot to explain…services to sell. Just look at my website to find out my sales pitch. I don’t need to bad mouth anyone…I have a lot to discover, interviewing the investors as much as I get interviewed. Building one golf course at a time means I have to select wisely.
“IT REALLY IS MORE THE PLACE OF, AND MORE EFFECTIVE FOR THE GOLF CLUB ATLAS', RON WHITTENS, AND BRAD KLEINS, ET AL TO DO THE ARCHITECTURE CRITIQUING, AS INDEPENDENT THIRD PARTIES.” Jeff B.
Now you want to go even further and appoint an official court of opinion! This is a further and dramatic tightening of free speech. You actually want to disqualify architects from commentary on golf architecture…those who are directly involved and have the most to offer! Also, my comments had nothing to do with the architecture of any members in any association, but if analysis "REALLY IS MORE THE PLACE OF(OTHERS)"…then Tom Doak…time to retract The Confidential Guide. Or is there another set of standards for Tom?
How much benefit has that one book created? How much better off are golfers and INVESTORS because of it? I would think they are more discerning and demanding...better informed (the latter I would almost guarantee) The book is 100% opinion, and the greatest feature is it is without regard to reputation, relationships or favoritism. It is a valuable resource which I have benefited from and will in the future. I’m sure Tom’s honesty didn’t please everyone, but who benefits most? The individual.
Your text assumes I critique architecture. Check my posts, you will be sorely disappointed.
”WHO ARE YOU SUGGESTING THE INDUSTRY SHOULD BE ACCOUNTABLE TO?” Jeff B.
“…ACCOUTABLE TO?”…Not to undemocratic code, that’s an absolute certainty. If you believe in the American system it’s simple: The investor of course.
Placing the group’s interests before the individual as your rules pronounce are socialist and this breeds a closed, restricted society rather than an open, vigorous one. The greater the restrictions, the greater the decay.
You try to gloss over Dr. Mackenzie’s views on socialism like they are an aberration. Why not examine a few lines?
He said (Spirit of St. Andrews):
“In order to arrive at a decision as to the right or wrong of any social or economic problem, one should always be guided by the lessons of history.”
And…“Socialism is a policy of destruction and not construction.”
And “I left Europe to reside in America because I felt it would only be a question of time for Europe to be destroyed by socialistic propaganda and LEGISLATION.”
And “It is the DUTY of every good golfer and CITIZEN to dam this tide of pessimism AND ENCOURAGE COUNTER PROPAGANDA to neutralize false economic doctrines…”
That is valuable speech, but the socialists surely don’t like it.
Wonder what he would say if he knew an American Society was going to limit his speech with their very own “socialist…legislation”? Would he be happy to see an American Society travel down the proven path of decay, or would he pay heed to his own words and counter the false doctrines, the socialistic doctrine he despised and fled.
Freedom robbing rules are taxes. The more you tax, the less of the activity that is generated (in this case speech). That’s why they tax cigarettes like crazy, and like some of your rules, this is social engineering. Of course taxing tobacco only hurts the most vulnerable addicts, those who can least afford it, and your heavy taxation on speech hurts those most vulnerable as well.
I’ll finish this rebuttal with your opening paragraph:
“NO ONE IS STIFLING YOUR RANT HERE. DO IT ALL YOU LIKE. IF AND WHEN YOU APPLY TO A PROFESSIONAL SOCIETY, DON'T BE SURPRISED THAT THEY WILL QUESTION WHY YOU WANT TO BE A MEMBER, AFTER PUBLIC STATEMENTS YOU HAVE NO INTENTION OF FOLLOWING THEIR PRINCIPALS.” Jeff B.
I follow gladly the “principles” provided me under the Constitution. Why should I have to trade them in to join an architects association? Embrace “principles” which serve the interests of the group ahead of the investor?
Life is too short (who knows when the last round will be played), freedom to precious, and would loathe myself for selling out my rights.
“… ASGCA MEMBERS, AND OTHERS, DO DISCUSS OTHERS WORK IN PRIVATE FOR THE BENEFIT OF LEARNING.....” Jeff B.
Jeff. Why don’t we send this thread (or just our portion) to your membership and let them read, debate and voice whether, in hindsight, the rules are undemocratic restrictions? Then we will know the ASGCA framers had intended well but erred, or that the ASGCA has other considerations paramount; their own interests before the investor and society…which is how the situation now stands.