6 ms·

Do you get upset at criminal defense lawyers who defend people who are obviously guilty (i.e. by getting clear and convincing evidence disqualified because of a

by avalys 3y ago

Do you get upset at criminal defense lawyers who defend people who are obviously guilty (i.e. by getting clear and convincing evidence disqualified because of a procedural error?) Or, would you say something like "The outcomes are not perfect but that's how the system works and stays as fair as possible for everyone"?

jjulius 3y ago
Most things are circumstantial and nuanced, not black and white. So, no, I usually do not get upset at that. Note how I said "can" rather than saying "must be" or something more absolute like that. And the idea that things are "as fair as possible for everyone" in this particular (read: Intuit) scenario is laughable at best.
AdieuToLogic 3y ago
> Do you get upset at criminal defense lawyers who defend people who are obviously guilty ... This is an obvious Straw man[0] fallacy. Intuit is a corporation engaged in lobbying efforts in order to retain and/or expand its market-share and not an individual needing representation in a criminal indictment. Unless your position is that Intuit corporate officers should be criminally prosecuted, which, if that is the case, I apologize for my misunderstanding and can see your point. 0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
- avalys 3y ago
  The system requires criminal defense attorneys to lobby for their client, even if this results in objectively bad outcomes in specific situations. Similarly, the system requires that anyone (including shareholders or employees of companies) be able to communicate with their political representatives about political policy. Even if sometimes this results in bad outcomes in specific situations.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - jjulius 3y ago
    The suggestion that citizens have equal access to communicate with their political reps as corporations is also laughable.
    - avalys 3y ago
      A corporation can represent the interests of hundreds or thousands of people - investors, shareholders, employees, customers (who depend on the product), etc. The larger corporations, even more so. But still, the Congressional office buildings are open to the public. Anyone can walk in and present their case. Yes, of course a senator cannot make as much time to meet with the millions of individual citizens as they can with the 500 individual Fortune 500 companies. I don’t think this defeats my argument. An individual citizen is objectively less important than a company involving tens or hundreds of thousands of citizens.
      - janalsncm 3y ago
        Corporations may touch a large number of people but those people are not a representative sample. Further, corporations are not lobbying for the interests of that large group of people, they are lobbying for the interests of the corporation, whose interests may incidentally and temporarily align with the groups you mentioned. The interests of the corporation only align with those of the people you mention insofar as those are in line with maximizing profits. However, this completely ignores the externalities of maximizing profits, such as those to the environment. More broadly, a country whose politicians represent the interests of corporations is no longer a democracy. Democracy is for people. Corporations are not people. They are abstract legal entities wired to maximize profits. The fact that they are composed of people is immaterial, since they do many things contrary to the interests of those people all the time.
      - jjulius 3y ago
        The disconnect occurs when you realize that the issues businesses lobby for don't always benefit their own employees, nor are they only ever lobbying just to stay alive as a business. In point of fact, Intuit's lobbying in this very instance also negatively impacts their own employees. Edit: A generic example to further drive the point home would be oil companies lobbying against environmental protections. Such moves only benefit the business and directly harm everyone, including their own employees. Edit 2: And then there are all of the instances where businesses have lobbied against changes to labor laws, wages, etc. that would objectively improve the lives of their own employees...

by avalys 3y ago

jjulius 3y ago

Most things are circumstantial and nuanced, not black and white. So, no, I usually do not get upset at that. Note how I said "can" rather than saying "must be" or something more absolute like that. And the idea that things are "as fair as possible for everyone" in this particular (read: Intuit) scenario is laughable at best.

AdieuToLogic 3y ago

> Do you get upset at criminal defense lawyers who defend people who are obviously guilty ... This is an obvious Straw man[0] fallacy. Intuit is a corporation engaged in lobbying efforts in order to retain and/or expand its market-share and not an individual needing representation in a criminal indictment. Unless your position is that Intuit corporate officers should be criminally prosecuted, which, if that is the case, I apologize for my misunderstanding and can see your point. 0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

avalys 3y ago
The system requires criminal defense attorneys to lobby for their client, even if this results in objectively bad outcomes in specific situations. Similarly, the system requires that anyone (including shareholders or employees of companies) be able to communicate with their political representatives about political policy. Even if sometimes this results in bad outcomes in specific situations.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- jjulius 3y ago
  The suggestion that citizens have equal access to communicate with their political reps as corporations is also laughable.
  - avalys 3y ago
    A corporation can represent the interests of hundreds or thousands of people - investors, shareholders, employees, customers (who depend on the product), etc. The larger corporations, even more so. But still, the Congressional office buildings are open to the public. Anyone can walk in and present their case. Yes, of course a senator cannot make as much time to meet with the millions of individual citizens as they can with the 500 individual Fortune 500 companies. I don’t think this defeats my argument. An individual citizen is objectively less important than a company involving tens or hundreds of thousands of citizens.
    - janalsncm 3y ago
      Corporations may touch a large number of people but those people are not a representative sample. Further, corporations are not lobbying for the interests of that large group of people, they are lobbying for the interests of the corporation, whose interests may incidentally and temporarily align with the groups you mentioned. The interests of the corporation only align with those of the people you mention insofar as those are in line with maximizing profits. However, this completely ignores the externalities of maximizing profits, such as those to the environment. More broadly, a country whose politicians represent the interests of corporations is no longer a democracy. Democracy is for people. Corporations are not people. They are abstract legal entities wired to maximize profits. The fact that they are composed of people is immaterial, since they do many things contrary to the interests of those people all the time.
    - jjulius 3y ago
      The disconnect occurs when you realize that the issues businesses lobby for don't always benefit their own employees, nor are they only ever lobbying just to stay alive as a business. In point of fact, Intuit's lobbying in this very instance also negatively impacts their own employees. Edit: A generic example to further drive the point home would be oil companies lobbying against environmental protections. Such moves only benefit the business and directly harm everyone, including their own employees. Edit 2: And then there are all of the instances where businesses have lobbied against changes to labor laws, wages, etc. that would objectively improve the lives of their own employees...