5 ms·

Except in the case of lawyers and doctors, the gatekeeping is explicitly enforced by law. You cannot write your own prescriptions, and while you can represent

Except in the case of lawyers and doctors, the gatekeeping is explicitly enforced by law. You cannot write your own prescriptions, and while you can represent yourself in court, the lawyers who run the court do everything to ensure you will likely stumble. Guilds who control legally enforced gates require some kind of counterbalancing force to ensure that they don't work for their own interest rather than the public interest (for which they have been empowered by the government to work). My point is that if your guild is entrusted with monopoly power by the government, the guild's behavior must be held to a higher standard (work must be in the public's interest, not in the guild member's individual interest). Unfortunately this point seems to be lost in modern culture.

smacktoward 8y ago
> while you can represent yourself in court, the lawyers who run the court do everything to ensure you will likely stumble Non-lawyers who represent themselves in court don't stumble because of a sinister conspiracy by lawyers to trip them up. They stumble because law is a really complicated subject, and no matter how smart you are it's impossible to replace years of full-time learning with a little reading on the side. The saying "a man who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client" is hundreds of years old.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- someguydave 8y ago
  Yes but the complexity serves the interest of lawyers collectively and individually. I would argue that is precisely a conspiracy against the public interest. Put another way: nobody individually profits when the law is made simple and clear.
  - pnw_hazor 8y ago
    Laws/legal procedures are complicated because the world and its actors are complicated. And not all actors are acting in good faith, with the same facts, or even rationally. If you want to have rule of law relying on simple laws just doesn't cut it most of the time. Now, legalese can and should be reduced, modern lawyers are working on that. But laws will always be used to enforce/define complex systems or relationships. This often requires complex rules.
    - someguydave 8y ago
      I believe the argument "Laws/legal procedures are complicated because the world and its actors are complicated" is false because it confuses cause and effect. It's true the world is complex, uncomprehendingly so. But that bears no relationship to laws and policies, upon which man chooses to impose on his fellow man. I do see how the application of simple law is complex. But that complexity could be seen as a trade-off. I'm willing to have a reasonable amount of injustice in exchange for simplifying the application of the law.
      - Retra 8y ago
        >I'm willing to have a reasonable amount of injustice in exchange for simplifying the application of the law. The people experiencing such injustice are not willing, and violently so.
        someguydave 8y ago
        It's an understandable reaction, but there's no such thing as "perfect justice" this side of heaven.
  - Retra 8y ago
    Individuals do profit when the law is simple and clear. Often to the point where problems arise and people start proposing minor adjustments to the law... wherein it eventually ceases to be simple and clear.
  - dsnuh 8y ago
    I have to ask if you are speaking from experience here or just dislike lawyers based on tropes in our culture? Having been through a 2 year legal battle myself, I can tell you that the complexity is there for a reason, and that reason is lawyers arguing a client's case, the court reconsidering their previous opinion, and hopefully a more fair outcome going forward. The world is far more complex than we can imagine, otherwise we'd be able to write perfect, simple laws. Let me give you a challenge: Say my wife and I are getting a divorce, and we are splitting up community property. I have options and RSUs (any equity asset on a vesting schedule really) that I was awarded before we were married, some that were awarded after, some awarded before that vested after our date of separation. These all have different vesting schedules, strike prices, and hypothetical future value (stock might tank, might leave before it all vests, etc). What is a simple law to determine what dollar value I owe my ex for her interest in this community property?
    - someguydave 8y ago
      Let me ask you a related question: how much injustice would you personally tolerate in exchange for simplicity? For instance in your divorce question: why not excercise everything at the date of divorce and split the proceeds 50/50? Is that outrageous? Or simple?
      - dsnuh 8y ago
        It's way too simple. Let's say I was awarded 1000 shares of stock that vest over the next 4 years. Let's say I was awarded these stocks only 2 weeks before date of separation. Does my ex have the same community property interest in these 1000 stocks (spoiler: they don't) as in 1000 stocks awarded 2 years previously, before the marriage ended? Does it matter how long I worked at the company during the marriage (yes, it does)? What if one of the parties doesn't want to sell the stock, or it doesn't make sense because the stocks are currently underwater (but may not be at some future date)? What if many of the assets in question are Restricted Stock Units, with no agreed upon value since they cannot be priced until they are released? "Just sell it all and split it 50/50! DUH!" is not something that works in the real world, where the law is meant to operate.
paulgrant999 8y ago
What is this higher standard? You think hanging them up from yardarms would deter them? You want to ensure proper behavior; you have to take away the tools that let them aggregate power in the first place; and prevent it from re-occurring. There is no "higher" standard. There is only one standard; functional, competent, accountable, just. If you don't have a legal system that can accomplish those. Then you need to scrap your legal system. Not "hold them to a higher standard", which often is just an escape clause for preferential treatment ("Chevron deference").
- someguydave 8y ago
  This is probably why Jefferson thought that periodic revolution would be needed to put down the barbarism of the previous generation
  - paulgrant999 8y ago
    Wouldn't help with perpetual corporations owning most of the assets. Globalism was just an extension of capitalism, to escape to other jurisdictions. It is not an accident that the GINI coefficient, is so drastically out of whack in the US. The mortgage system, was meant to break the original land grants (which had to be honored under British-American common law). The corporation both a shield for the rich; and a sword against the middle-classes as it disenfranchises citizens from the bill of rights. Intellectual property is just a more extreme form of corporations. The notion that idea can be owned for decades, with the cost of enforcement out-sourced to the public, and private profits insourced. Same with the public schooling system (ready workers). Etc. Just about every Western institution ("improvement") you'ld care to name, has an ulterior motive moving us one step further along to what amounts to perpetual slavery. I think if you sent back a person from this era, 120+ years ago, to try and "improve" the American system, they'ld have burned him alive. Such is the level of degradation inherent in todays "modern" governance.

smacktoward 8y ago

> while you can represent yourself in court, the lawyers who run the court do everything to ensure you will likely stumble Non-lawyers who represent themselves in court don't stumble because of a sinister conspiracy by lawyers to trip them up. They stumble because law is a really complicated subject, and no matter how smart you are it's impossible to replace years of full-time learning with a little reading on the side. The saying "a man who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client" is hundreds of years old.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
someguydave 8y ago
Yes but the complexity serves the interest of lawyers collectively and individually. I would argue that is precisely a conspiracy against the public interest. Put another way: nobody individually profits when the law is made simple and clear.
- pnw_hazor 8y ago
  Laws/legal procedures are complicated because the world and its actors are complicated. And not all actors are acting in good faith, with the same facts, or even rationally. If you want to have rule of law relying on simple laws just doesn't cut it most of the time. Now, legalese can and should be reduced, modern lawyers are working on that. But laws will always be used to enforce/define complex systems or relationships. This often requires complex rules.
  - someguydave 8y ago
    I believe the argument "Laws/legal procedures are complicated because the world and its actors are complicated" is false because it confuses cause and effect. It's true the world is complex, uncomprehendingly so. But that bears no relationship to laws and policies, upon which man chooses to impose on his fellow man. I do see how the application of simple law is complex. But that complexity could be seen as a trade-off. I'm willing to have a reasonable amount of injustice in exchange for simplifying the application of the law.
    - Retra 8y ago
      >I'm willing to have a reasonable amount of injustice in exchange for simplifying the application of the law. The people experiencing such injustice are not willing, and violently so.
      - someguydave 8y ago
        It's an understandable reaction, but there's no such thing as "perfect justice" this side of heaven.
- Retra 8y ago
  Individuals do profit when the law is simple and clear. Often to the point where problems arise and people start proposing minor adjustments to the law... wherein it eventually ceases to be simple and clear.
- dsnuh 8y ago
  I have to ask if you are speaking from experience here or just dislike lawyers based on tropes in our culture? Having been through a 2 year legal battle myself, I can tell you that the complexity is there for a reason, and that reason is lawyers arguing a client's case, the court reconsidering their previous opinion, and hopefully a more fair outcome going forward. The world is far more complex than we can imagine, otherwise we'd be able to write perfect, simple laws. Let me give you a challenge: Say my wife and I are getting a divorce, and we are splitting up community property. I have options and RSUs (any equity asset on a vesting schedule really) that I was awarded before we were married, some that were awarded after, some awarded before that vested after our date of separation. These all have different vesting schedules, strike prices, and hypothetical future value (stock might tank, might leave before it all vests, etc). What is a simple law to determine what dollar value I owe my ex for her interest in this community property?
  - someguydave 8y ago
    Let me ask you a related question: how much injustice would you personally tolerate in exchange for simplicity? For instance in your divorce question: why not excercise everything at the date of divorce and split the proceeds 50/50? Is that outrageous? Or simple?
    - dsnuh 8y ago
      It's way too simple. Let's say I was awarded 1000 shares of stock that vest over the next 4 years. Let's say I was awarded these stocks only 2 weeks before date of separation. Does my ex have the same community property interest in these 1000 stocks (spoiler: they don't) as in 1000 stocks awarded 2 years previously, before the marriage ended? Does it matter how long I worked at the company during the marriage (yes, it does)? What if one of the parties doesn't want to sell the stock, or it doesn't make sense because the stocks are currently underwater (but may not be at some future date)? What if many of the assets in question are Restricted Stock Units, with no agreed upon value since they cannot be priced until they are released? "Just sell it all and split it 50/50! DUH!" is not something that works in the real world, where the law is meant to operate.

paulgrant999 8y ago

What is this higher standard? You think hanging them up from yardarms would deter them? You want to ensure proper behavior; you have to take away the tools that let them aggregate power in the first place; and prevent it from re-occurring. There is no "higher" standard. There is only one standard; functional, competent, accountable, just. If you don't have a legal system that can accomplish those. Then you need to scrap your legal system. Not "hold them to a higher standard", which often is just an escape clause for preferential treatment ("Chevron deference").

someguydave 8y ago
This is probably why Jefferson thought that periodic revolution would be needed to put down the barbarism of the previous generation
- paulgrant999 8y ago
  Wouldn't help with perpetual corporations owning most of the assets. Globalism was just an extension of capitalism, to escape to other jurisdictions. It is not an accident that the GINI coefficient, is so drastically out of whack in the US. The mortgage system, was meant to break the original land grants (which had to be honored under British-American common law). The corporation both a shield for the rich; and a sword against the middle-classes as it disenfranchises citizens from the bill of rights. Intellectual property is just a more extreme form of corporations. The notion that idea can be owned for decades, with the cost of enforcement out-sourced to the public, and private profits insourced. Same with the public schooling system (ready workers). Etc. Just about every Western institution ("improvement") you'ld care to name, has an ulterior motive moving us one step further along to what amounts to perpetual slavery. I think if you sent back a person from this era, 120+ years ago, to try and "improve" the American system, they'ld have burned him alive. Such is the level of degradation inherent in todays "modern" governance.