cliff@unmvax.UUCP (02/25/85)
> >The claim was that in a Libertarian country there would be no inflation, > >no unemployment, and no lawyers. I suppose I was too struck by the > >similarity to what communist true believers used to say about the Soviet > >Union (or, later, Cuba) to see it as anything other than dreamstuff. > > You are quite right to ridicule the idea that there would be no lawyers > (the underlying philosophy of Libertarianism may be quite simple, just as > the underlying principles of physics may be quite simple, but the > manifestations of each may be quite complex), and quite wrong to ridicule > the idea that there would be neither inflation nor unemployment. No. Let's settle this once and for all. The claim that there would be no lawyers in Libertaria is a straw man. I wrote the original posting and that is not what I said. I guess if you tell a lie long enough everyone will believe it. Here is the original quote (in context): ************************* Start of original in context ************************ > wealth. Whenever he gets into legal trouble (e.g., for paternity), he > engages the top legal talents of Gouge & Swindle to get him off the hook. Surprise, since the legal code would be so much easier to understand it would be inconceivable that a lawyer's prowess would enter into the play. Of course if there were sufficient corruption, then the wealthy would still be getting the freebies, but we are talking about a libertarian country with a minimalist government that is non prone to corruption; we are not talking about one of the many socialist governments riddled with graft. *************************** End of original in context ************************ OK, I agree I should have written the less ambiguous "...understand it would be inconceivable that a lawyer's superior ability, skill, ingenuity, or technique would be the determining factor in a judgement" or even more concretely "...inconceivable that the most-expensive lawyer would always win." When the first rounds of attacks came out I did not realize that people had thought I claimed there would be no lawyers in Libertaria and my replies reflected this, as the following reproduction shows: ****************************** Start of reply ********************************* > > ... the legal code would be so much easier to understand it would > > be inconceivable that a lawyer's prowess would enter into the play. Is it really that hard to imagine a judicial system where the smartest lawyer didn't win (unlike what happens today)? or did you not understand the meaning of prowess in that sentence? I would think that anyone would favor such a system. Even if you believe it to be impossible, isn't it more likely that a system with fewer laws and a less powerful government would have a fairer legal system than one that is clogged with victimless crime laws? ****************************** End of reply ************************************ Finally it was quite obvious that people were trying to build straw-men out of my position and because of the initial ambiguity, the usual straw-men-busters did not recognize the claims for what they were, and jumped on the bandwagon. So I posted yet another explanation (part of which is reproduced below)... ******************************* Start of explanation ************************** >Surprise, since the legal code would be so much easier to understand it would >be inconceivable that a lawyer's prowess would enter into the play. Let me elaborate; My statement obviously wasn't sufficiently lucid. The original Libertaria article implied that Jack (the rich kid) would win in court because he could afford "the top legal talents" to get him off the hook. (Having been involved with UNIX has led me to the side of terseness rather than loquacity, but I will atone for my sins and periodically browse VMS manuals and the like to balance things out.) Here are a few sentences to convey the meaning I had hoped to put forth in one: In a sufficiently succinct system, the skill of the lawyer would minimally affect the outcome of the trial. I am not saying that no longer would lawyers be necessary, but that it would no longer be a question of the smarter or more experienced lawyer winning the case. In these times, when a case goes to court, it is fairly easy to sidestep conviction or a harsh sentence by buying legal power. This is a sham, it enables {persecut,prosecut}ion of the poor, lets people with money/power get off scot free. How many people think Jerry Garcia will serve time for being caught freebasing in his car in Golden Gate park? How many of the Kennedy clan will be tried for illegalities related to David's habits? Was anybody surprised with what happened to Patty Hearst? Now if you want to discuss whether libertarianism could lead (not would lead, this was a view of one of many possible futures) to a more fair set of laws, go ahead. Please do not insult my intelligence by claiming that I think that in a libertarian society there would be no people representing other people for fees (i.e. lawyers) ... whether there would be mandatory certification or not is another question (the answer is no). Brief summary: direct application of libertarian principles could result in a legal code that would not give significant advantage to wealthy people. ******************************** End of explanation *************************** So now, with those three reproductions to browse at your leisure you can easily see that I never made any claim that there would be no lawyers in Libertaria. Whenever that straw man raises its ugly head we can immediately beat the stuffing out of it and use the straw for other purposes (perhaps we can donate it to Tim in case he runs out--he uses it at such an incredible rate). --Cliff [Matthews] {purdue, cmcl2, ihnp4}!lanl!unmvax!cliff {csu-cs, pur-ee, convex, gatech, ucbvax}!unmvax!cliff 4744 Trumbull S.E. - Albuquerque NM 87108 - (505) 265-9143
jlg@lanl.ARPA (02/26/85)
> > > ... the legal code would be so much easier to understand it would > > > be inconceivable that a lawyer's prowess would enter into the play. > > Is it really that hard to imagine a judicial system where the smartest lawyer > didn't win (unlike what happens today)? or did you not understand the meaning > of prowess in that sentence? I would think that anyone would favor such a > system. Even if you believe it to be impossible, isn't it more likely that > a system with fewer laws and a less powerful government would have a fairer > legal system than one that is clogged with victimless crime laws? What do victimless crime laws have to do with the question at issue? Even if you had a infinite number of 'victimless' crime laws, noone would pay the least bit of attention to them in the context of a trial concerning the violation of some other law (murder, for example). Laws concerning 'victimless' crimes are never even mentioned or referenced (except as possible motivational material) in a murder trial. The real reason that lawyer prowess enters into the problem is the number of confusing and contradictory laws concerning admissibility and use of evidence. Trial evidence must be gathered in a particular way, introduced in a particular order, and the jury (if any) must be advised on its meaning and relevance. If any of these are messed up, the appeal will succeed. Add to this the number of varying degrees of any crime (first degree murder, second degree, manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, self defence,...) and it's easy to see how a jury can be swayed by clever lawyer. Most of these things were introduced into law in an attempt to reduce inequities in the legal system. Perhaps it's time to simplify though. J. Giles