4 ms·

>As such, "medical care" doesn't make sense as a right, because it's a service provided to you, not inherent to you in the sense that speech or association betw

by koboll 8y ago

>As such, "medical care" doesn't make sense as a right, because it's a service provided to you, not inherent to you in the sense that speech or association between individuals. Guess we'd better scrap that whole "right to an attorney" portion of due process, then.

barry-cotter 8y ago
IANAL but isn’t that a right to have a lawyer if you can afford to hire one? I know you’re not going to be provided with a lawyer at the state’s cost in civil cases though that’s not true in criminal cases. If you can’t afford one you’ll get a public defender. IIRC Peter Thiel said that if you have less than $100 million your access to the courts is more theoretical than actual. Hulk Hogan certainly couldn’t have afforded to bring Gawker down by himself and it’s not like he’s poor. Fix: Allow people to sell, or sell shares in, their right to sue.
- codetrotter 8y ago
  I didn’t even know Gawker shut down, but apparently they did since 2016. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bollea_v._Gawker https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bollea_v._Gawker http://gawker.com/how-guilty-should-i-feel-1785565192 http://gawker.com/how-guilty-should-i-feel-1785565192
- dmurray 8y ago
  This already is allowed in many places, including "most US jurisdictions" according to Wikipedia[0]. There's even a YC company that does it, which was discussed here when they were looking to fund lawsuits against Equifax[1]. The practice is called champerty or litigation funding. The fact that this is not more popular suggests that litigation is not efficient for the rich, either. In the end it only enriches the lawyers. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_financing https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_financing [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15249825 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15249825
microcolonel 8y ago
> Guess we'd better scrap that whole "right to an attorney" portion of due process, then. "You have the right to have an attorney. If you cannot afford one, one will be appointed to you by the court." is the language intended to be used in the Miranda warning; and it is not so much that you have a right to an attorney, but that your right to a speedy and public trial (...and to have the Assistance of Counsel for [your] defence) combines with the state's mandate to prosecute your case to produce a mandate to provide you an attorney. The "right to an attorney" is a colloquialism for referring to the state's obligation to fulfill the requirements of a constitutional trial if they want to try at all, which in practice either means the state hires public defenders, or the state can not try you (though this wasn't done in practice until it was interpreted this way in court). There are other legal colloquialisms such as "jury nullification", which is an emergent behaviour rather than an explicit one.
- microcolonel 8y ago
  Note: For many, despite the state's obligations, public defenders are more theoretical than real. Many public defender's offices are overbooked to two, three, or sometimes ten or more times the state's own recommendations, and have too little time to read the basic content of a case, let alone mount a defense. I'd urge everyone, before getting too deep into the next public works craze; be it safe injection sites, two-million dollar park washrooms, subsidized parades or festivals, or the installation of overpriced (but cute) streetcars where buses would be more efficient; consider trying to get your local public defenders office up to at least your state's own minimum recommended standards, and maybe remove application fees (it is altogether quite bizarre that one must pay to apply to use a service intended for people who are unable to pay for a defense, and leads to some incredibly heartbreaking stories). Or alternatively, you could see about your local legal aid society.
phkahler 8y ago
The government provided attorney is part of the cost of prosecuting a case. They can always cut back on law enforcement if they don't have the money. People are going to have medical problems no matter what so public defenders and doctors are not a proper comparison.
- jasode 8y ago
  >The government provided attorney is part of the cost of prosecuting a case. Exactly. The "right to an attorney" is actually intended to be a check on government power and it's not an economic entitlement like food stamps. One can see in the Declaration of Independence that the complaints included a "right to a speedy trial" and "right to a trial by jury" because the monarchy government was abusing its power and throwing people in prison on arbitrary whims. That's where the right to have an attorney came from. We should note that the USA does not provide government-funded lawyers for suing your landlord, incorporating your company, or filing your patent application. (Maybe the government should but that's a different conversation.) If the government is the adversary in criminal prosecution and they can take a citizen's life & liberty away via prison sentence or capital punishment, that is the limited case where the government will provide an attorney. When the government is the opponent in other departments such as the IRS disputing taxes owed, or SEC investigating financial disclosures, there is no "right to an attorney" in those cases to help the citizen fight them in court -- unless it turns into a criminal prosecution.
  - sandworm101 8y ago
    The right to an attorney is more complicated. It isnt a free attorney. Only the poor get one provided. If you can, you have to provide your own. I also hesitate to describe any right at a check on power. That suggests planning, an overall design. There is no grand master plan. We have a series of rights rooted in history and tradition. Religion has played a large part. The system has never been designed. Even the founders writing of the constitution was really just a tweeking of some longstanding ideas. The percieved "balance" is fiction. Other countries have very different rights and do not tip into chaos. Canada lacks the right to a jury trial, and yet somehow isnt a lawless dictatorship. The UK has a very different concept of free speech, yet the BBC is probably the most trusted source of news on the planet. Other systems work, perhaps better.

by koboll 8y ago

barry-cotter 8y ago

IANAL but isn’t that a right to have a lawyer if you can afford to hire one? I know you’re not going to be provided with a lawyer at the state’s cost in civil cases though that’s not true in criminal cases. If you can’t afford one you’ll get a public defender. IIRC Peter Thiel said that if you have less than $100 million your access to the courts is more theoretical than actual. Hulk Hogan certainly couldn’t have afforded to bring Gawker down by himself and it’s not like he’s poor. Fix: Allow people to sell, or sell shares in, their right to sue.

codetrotter 8y ago
I didn’t even know Gawker shut down, but apparently they did since 2016. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bollea_v._Gawker https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bollea_v._Gawker http://gawker.com/how-guilty-should-i-feel-1785565192 http://gawker.com/how-guilty-should-i-feel-1785565192
dmurray 8y ago
This already is allowed in many places, including "most US jurisdictions" according to Wikipedia[0]. There's even a YC company that does it, which was discussed here when they were looking to fund lawsuits against Equifax[1]. The practice is called champerty or litigation funding. The fact that this is not more popular suggests that litigation is not efficient for the rich, either. In the end it only enriches the lawyers. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_financing https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_financing [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15249825 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15249825

microcolonel 8y ago

> Guess we'd better scrap that whole "right to an attorney" portion of due process, then. "You have the right to have an attorney. If you cannot afford one, one will be appointed to you by the court." is the language intended to be used in the Miranda warning; and it is not so much that you have a right to an attorney, but that your right to a speedy and public trial (...and to have the Assistance of Counsel for [your] defence) combines with the state's mandate to prosecute your case to produce a mandate to provide you an attorney. The "right to an attorney" is a colloquialism for referring to the state's obligation to fulfill the requirements of a constitutional trial if they want to try at all, which in practice either means the state hires public defenders, or the state can not try you (though this wasn't done in practice until it was interpreted this way in court). There are other legal colloquialisms such as "jury nullification", which is an emergent behaviour rather than an explicit one.

microcolonel 8y ago
Note: For many, despite the state's obligations, public defenders are more theoretical than real. Many public defender's offices are overbooked to two, three, or sometimes ten or more times the state's own recommendations, and have too little time to read the basic content of a case, let alone mount a defense. I'd urge everyone, before getting too deep into the next public works craze; be it safe injection sites, two-million dollar park washrooms, subsidized parades or festivals, or the installation of overpriced (but cute) streetcars where buses would be more efficient; consider trying to get your local public defenders office up to at least your state's own minimum recommended standards, and maybe remove application fees (it is altogether quite bizarre that one must pay to apply to use a service intended for people who are unable to pay for a defense, and leads to some incredibly heartbreaking stories). Or alternatively, you could see about your local legal aid society.

phkahler 8y ago

The government provided attorney is part of the cost of prosecuting a case. They can always cut back on law enforcement if they don't have the money. People are going to have medical problems no matter what so public defenders and doctors are not a proper comparison.

jasode 8y ago
>The government provided attorney is part of the cost of prosecuting a case. Exactly. The "right to an attorney" is actually intended to be a check on government power and it's not an economic entitlement like food stamps. One can see in the Declaration of Independence that the complaints included a "right to a speedy trial" and "right to a trial by jury" because the monarchy government was abusing its power and throwing people in prison on arbitrary whims. That's where the right to have an attorney came from. We should note that the USA does not provide government-funded lawyers for suing your landlord, incorporating your company, or filing your patent application. (Maybe the government should but that's a different conversation.) If the government is the adversary in criminal prosecution and they can take a citizen's life & liberty away via prison sentence or capital punishment, that is the limited case where the government will provide an attorney. When the government is the opponent in other departments such as the IRS disputing taxes owed, or SEC investigating financial disclosures, there is no "right to an attorney" in those cases to help the citizen fight them in court -- unless it turns into a criminal prosecution.
- sandworm101 8y ago
  The right to an attorney is more complicated. It isnt a free attorney. Only the poor get one provided. If you can, you have to provide your own. I also hesitate to describe any right at a check on power. That suggests planning, an overall design. There is no grand master plan. We have a series of rights rooted in history and tradition. Religion has played a large part. The system has never been designed. Even the founders writing of the constitution was really just a tweeking of some longstanding ideas. The percieved "balance" is fiction. Other countries have very different rights and do not tip into chaos. Canada lacks the right to a jury trial, and yet somehow isnt a lawless dictatorship. The UK has a very different concept of free speech, yet the BBC is probably the most trusted source of news on the planet. Other systems work, perhaps better.