4 ms·
This reminds me of a discussion I had with someone who self identified as a libertarian and was on the extreme side of anti-regulation. Their argument was that
by knightofmars 8y ago
This reminds me of a discussion I had with someone who self identified as a libertarian and was on the extreme side of anti-regulation. Their argument was that if regulations didn't exist then in those situations where they had an issue with a company or the government they would sue. Which, for me, raised the immediate question of "Who is going to do the suing?". The response, "A lawyer..." and a look that was supposed to inform me that I was being dense. Then after a few seconds it clicked and they started coming up with any number of criteria by which they'd use to determine who was a "qualified lawyer". All of which were based on their own experiences and knowledge. While obviously this is an anecdote, it was interesting to see how much all of us (even those in the opposition camp) take for granted with regards to the regulatory structures that exist. I can't help but think "CHESTERTON'S FENCE" anytime someone proposes a radical change such as that which is proposed by the extreme anti-regulatory side.
- darkerside 8y agoSelf-representation would be the sensible answer here. Just because your friend didn't have a good answer doesn't mean there isn't one.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- knightofmars 8y agoFeel free to represent yourself against a multi-hundred-million dollar (or larger) corporation and let me know how that goes.