Well, part of the problem with our current society is that the social norm is to only look out for your own interest, and the public be damned.
This attitude is applicable to lawyers, who only represent their clients, to company executives, who only represent investors, to investors, who only care about their own returns, and to lobbyists, who only care about their lobby's interests.
This sort of system is fine when all parties to a dispute are equally organized and powerful, but it squeezes out the general public, who are not able to mobilize as effectively. It also forces people to focus on how to win, rather than how to cooperate more effectively for mutual benefit.
Unless we are willing to relax this attitude of 'only care about my own or my client's bottom line' at least a little bit, there is going to be little room for changes that are necessary to happen.
I can't see that going well if it's the government that appoints and pays for the public advocate.
And if the public advocate is an elected position, then we have the same problem as exists now -- unions are politically much more organized than the general public.
This attitude is applicable to lawyers, who only represent their clients, to company executives, who only represent investors, to investors, who only care about their own returns, and to lobbyists, who only care about their lobby's interests.
This sort of system is fine when all parties to a dispute are equally organized and powerful, but it squeezes out the general public, who are not able to mobilize as effectively. It also forces people to focus on how to win, rather than how to cooperate more effectively for mutual benefit.
Unless we are willing to relax this attitude of 'only care about my own or my client's bottom line' at least a little bit, there is going to be little room for changes that are necessary to happen.