4 ms·

The system of legal representation is older than our legal system itself, having its roots in ancient Rome. While law must be comprehensible by the general cit

by s_q_b 12y ago

The system of legal representation is older than our legal system itself, having its roots in ancient Rome. While law must be comprehensible by the general citizenry, this is constantly at odds with the complexity needed to support equally complex economic and social interactions. Edit in reply: >That is certainly correct, but not very insightful. Just because something is old it is not good. I mention the Roman legal system, as most legal requirements that have survived several millennia intact have extremely valid reasons. In this case, the reason is one that I have already elucidated: Human behavior is complex, and thus the law must be as well. To understand complex systems, most people need the assistance of a trained professional. As to your second point, do you have an alternate solution? Most people have plumbing too complex for them to repair, why should anyone expect a national legal system to be more simple than household plumbing? >If you cannot understand laws yourself you need legal guidance for everything you do... No, you don't. There is a third alternative, and it's what most people do. They hire counsel when engaging in high-stakes disputes, negotiations, or agreements. Second Edit: Rhino above ^ has certainly expressed my viewpoint most clearly and succinctly here.

sgift 12y ago
> The system of legal representation is older than our legal system itself, having its roots in ancient Rome. That is certainly correct, but not very insightful. Just because something is old it is not good. Basically, what legal representation tries to solve is the problem that law makers want to make some laws which are no longer understandable by the general citizenry, usually for the reasons you've noted (complex interactions need complex laws(1)). So, to solve that fundamental problem people thought a while and then introduced legal representation as a solution, which created a new problem: It is a fake solution. To be a law-abiding citizen forces you to know what you are allowed to do and what you are not allowed to do. If you cannot understand laws yourself you need legal guidance for everything you do, which is simply unfeasable in reality(2). The alternative system used in reality is "well, I think I understand what's expected of me, so I'll just do it" ... which works 80% of the time and will bite you in the ass 20% of the time. These are usually the court cases where people are "100% certain" that "I didn't do anything wrong!" while the lawyers just think "Oh yes, you did. You did, you just didn't know. Welcome in hell." (1) At least that is usually assumed and the discussion will only get harder if we start questioning that assumption, so I'll stay with it for the moment. (2) Due to costs, time consumption and so on. Life would come to a grinding halt if people actually followed that model.
- hurin 12y ago
  I don't know what good it can be to try and debate him - All he's done so far (other than down-voting comments he disagrees with) is assert platitudes about how by necessity law must be too complex for mere uninitiated mortals (such as mathematicians, engineers et. all). Seems like we've come very far since ancient times /s (ref:) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Socrates http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Socrates
  - s_q_b 12y ago
    There's a reason that every advanced legal system for the past two thousand years has involved professional representatives: there is no better alternative. Similarly, there is a reason many engineering professions have a Professional Engineer licensure. It takes special knowledge to design complex infrastructure, just as it does to understand complex laws. I've pointed out a necessary tension in the system that gives rise to legal complexity, and you've failed to advance any alternative theory for how it should be addressed. It's also a pathetically laughable ad hominem to think that I've downvoted anyone, but if you think it bolsters your facile argument by all means assert falsehoods. You do know you can't down vote replies to your own comments, correct? Lawyers do artificially keep their numbers low, but you both show a profound misunderstanding of the problem, and have seemingly no concept of how this is actually done in practice (law school as graduate rather than undergraduate education, weakening of mens rea requirements, regulations being given full legal force, restricted access to the bar examination, etc.)
  - anonbanker 12y ago
    While I agree with much of your sentiment, you would be wise to avoid assuming he has sockpuppet accounts with sufficient karma to downvote, unless you have evidence to support this fact.

by s_q_b 12y ago

sgift 12y ago

> The system of legal representation is older than our legal system itself, having its roots in ancient Rome. That is certainly correct, but not very insightful. Just because something is old it is not good. Basically, what legal representation tries to solve is the problem that law makers want to make some laws which are no longer understandable by the general citizenry, usually for the reasons you've noted (complex interactions need complex laws(1)). So, to solve that fundamental problem people thought a while and then introduced legal representation as a solution, which created a new problem: It is a fake solution. To be a law-abiding citizen forces you to know what you are allowed to do and what you are not allowed to do. If you cannot understand laws yourself you need legal guidance for everything you do, which is simply unfeasable in reality(2). The alternative system used in reality is "well, I think I understand what's expected of me, so I'll just do it" ... which works 80% of the time and will bite you in the ass 20% of the time. These are usually the court cases where people are "100% certain" that "I didn't do anything wrong!" while the lawyers just think "Oh yes, you did. You did, you just didn't know. Welcome in hell." (1) At least that is usually assumed and the discussion will only get harder if we start questioning that assumption, so I'll stay with it for the moment. (2) Due to costs, time consumption and so on. Life would come to a grinding halt if people actually followed that model.

hurin 12y ago
I don't know what good it can be to try and debate him - All he's done so far (other than down-voting comments he disagrees with) is assert platitudes about how by necessity law must be too complex for mere uninitiated mortals (such as mathematicians, engineers et. all). Seems like we've come very far since ancient times /s (ref:) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Socrates http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Socrates
- s_q_b 12y ago
  There's a reason that every advanced legal system for the past two thousand years has involved professional representatives: there is no better alternative. Similarly, there is a reason many engineering professions have a Professional Engineer licensure. It takes special knowledge to design complex infrastructure, just as it does to understand complex laws. I've pointed out a necessary tension in the system that gives rise to legal complexity, and you've failed to advance any alternative theory for how it should be addressed. It's also a pathetically laughable ad hominem to think that I've downvoted anyone, but if you think it bolsters your facile argument by all means assert falsehoods. You do know you can't down vote replies to your own comments, correct? Lawyers do artificially keep their numbers low, but you both show a profound misunderstanding of the problem, and have seemingly no concept of how this is actually done in practice (law school as graduate rather than undergraduate education, weakening of mens rea requirements, regulations being given full legal force, restricted access to the bar examination, etc.)
- anonbanker 12y ago
  While I agree with much of your sentiment, you would be wise to avoid assuming he has sockpuppet accounts with sufficient karma to downvote, unless you have evidence to support this fact.