3 ms·
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.
by 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 agoBut, 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 agoWell 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]