4 ms·

>>In most of these cases, it's not the government protecting existing companies, it's the government protecting the naive population. You won't fire someone aft

>>In most of these cases, it's not the government protecting existing companies, it's the government protecting the naive population. You won't fire someone after six months of unpaid labor, but someone else will. Your expert system might create air-tight contracts, but someone else will cut corners. This untrue, throughout history companies get laws to make upstarts more difficult. There is no reason you need to go to law school or even pass the bar, if the buyers don't think it is a good tool they won't use it. In fact things can work the other way, you are protected the few who may be swindled (they're clearly visible), but ignore all those who are harmed by the lack of new products. It's very hard to look at the other side of the equation, but it is normally quite significant.

prospero 18y ago
Do you want to back up that assertion? I'm not saying regulatory capture doesn't exist, I'm just saying it's not the primary driving force behind legislation. You don't get to just say I'm wrong and make vague references to historical trends. Unless a company already has lawyers on staff, they have no way of determining whether a legal expert system is a good product or not. For that reason, it cannot be a substitute for a living, breathing lawyer. It could certainly be a tool for lawyers, and streamline the hell out of most legal processes, but to treat it as something more is to give up on any lowest common denominator for legal advice. And while this would certainly harm lawyers, it would also harm a great many other people.
- ellyagg 18y ago
  But, see, you claim it would harm a great many other people. We claim, on balance, it will help many more people than it hurts. Down with guilds!
- dantheman 18y ago
  Well there are many cases of regulator capture, the AMA, the railroad industry, the airplane industry (pre-deregulation), the telephone industry (pre-deregulation), and the cable industry. The recent mandates on testing toys for lead, has pretty much outlawed small toy producers. You can't prepare food at your house and legally sell it (even if you say this was cooked at my house). The FDA debacle with juice pasteurization vs more modern UV processes. > And while this would certainly harm lawyers, it would also harm a great many other people. Once again you make a statement that claim to be true with no real backing. Say 1 person is harmed by this newer cheaper law advice, and 10,000 are saved due to the reallocation of resources to medicine -- this is of course a hypothetical example, but it has just as much grounding as yours.
  - deleted 18y ago
    [deleted]

prospero 18y ago

Do you want to back up that assertion? I'm not saying regulatory capture doesn't exist, I'm just saying it's not the primary driving force behind legislation. You don't get to just say I'm wrong and make vague references to historical trends. Unless a company already has lawyers on staff, they have no way of determining whether a legal expert system is a good product or not. For that reason, it cannot be a substitute for a living, breathing lawyer. It could certainly be a tool for lawyers, and streamline the hell out of most legal processes, but to treat it as something more is to give up on any lowest common denominator for legal advice. And while this would certainly harm lawyers, it would also harm a great many other people.

ellyagg 18y ago
But, see, you claim it would harm a great many other people. We claim, on balance, it will help many more people than it hurts. Down with guilds!
dantheman 18y ago
Well there are many cases of regulator capture, the AMA, the railroad industry, the airplane industry (pre-deregulation), the telephone industry (pre-deregulation), and the cable industry. The recent mandates on testing toys for lead, has pretty much outlawed small toy producers. You can't prepare food at your house and legally sell it (even if you say this was cooked at my house). The FDA debacle with juice pasteurization vs more modern UV processes. > And while this would certainly harm lawyers, it would also harm a great many other people. Once again you make a statement that claim to be true with no real backing. Say 1 person is harmed by this newer cheaper law advice, and 10,000 are saved due to the reallocation of resources to medicine -- this is of course a hypothetical example, but it has just as much grounding as yours.
- deleted 18y ago
  [deleted]