4 ms·

What are you trying to say with that?

• mikestew 8y ago
  I'm saying that "airing grievances" "for money" has prior art. I'm a busy person, and the opinion stated says that it should be illegal for me to hire a person to represent my views before, say, a congressperson. Or it should be illegal to hire a person more eloquent than myself to state my case; a professional, as it were. We hire lawyers because navigating the law is difficult. Should we not also be allowed to hire professionals as we take part in the making of those same laws?
  • hjanssen 8y ago
    I still fail to see your point. A lobbyist still has a fundamentally different job than a lawyer, and they both use fundamentally different tactics to reach fundamentally different goals.
    • pathseeker 8y ago
      They don't have fundamentally different jobs. They are there to represent their clients' interests and advocate for them.
      • hjanssen 8y ago
        You can say the same about a debt collector. Thats just too broad of a statement to do anything with it.
  • trhway 8y ago
    In small claims court you can't be represented by a lawyer for example. Both - being represented and representing - aren't constitutional rights. So it is up to society whether to allow or prohibit it in various cases.