Universal Legal Representation

[Clete]

Everything without consequences.

Tell that to Donald Trump.

They aren't afraid to burn down your whole life if you say the wrong thing and they're happy to turn you into a ward of the state if you commit what they consider to be a crime. The left has no problem with enforcing arbitrary laws but let someone advocate for actual justice and they'll label that person a barbarian and they'll see to it that he's silenced, especially if his "barbaric" ideas start to get any traction.

 

[Idolater]

Tell that to Donald Trump.

They aren't afraid to burn down your whole life if you say the wrong thing and they're happy to turn you into a ward of the state if you commit what they consider to be a crime. The left has no problem with enforcing arbitrary laws but let someone advocate for actual justice and they'll label that person a barbarian and they'll see to it that he's silenced, especially if his "barbaric" ideas start to get any traction.

Universal legal representation would defend common citizens against a threat like this from ever happening to them, or at least making it a lot harder for it to happen. Why should Trump and other rich people have this kind of protection, and arrested people have a subsidized public defender (public attorney), but all the rest of us law-abiding poor people are out in the cold? Why should we as a country employ who knows how many, tens of thousands of public school teachers for our collective and individual benefit, and not lawyers? Aren't we a nation of laws? Why are those with legal representation always better off in this country than those without, all other things being equal?

 

[JudgeRightly]

Universal legal representation would defend common citizens against a threat like this from ever happening to them, or at least making it a lot harder for it to happen.

Such makes it easier to use the law as a weapon against the innocent.

Why should Trump and other rich people have this kind of protection, and arrested people have a subsidized public defender (public attorney),

They shouldn't.

but all the rest of us law-abiding poor people are out in the cold?

Law-abiding poor people should be equal under the law to rich people.

Why should we as a country employ who knows how many, tens of thousands of public school teachers for our collective and individual benefit,

We shouldn't.

and not lawyers?

We shouldn't have lawyers at all.

Aren't we a nation of laws?

Yes. Too many laws.

Why are those with legal representation always better off in this country than those without, all other things being equal?

Because we don't have the best legal system in the world. We have the best paid lawyers in the world.

Remember what I said about the law being used as a weapon?

 

[Right Divider]

Universal legal representation would defend common citizens against a threat like this from ever happening to them, or at least making it a lot harder for it to happen. Why should Trump and other rich people have this kind of protection, and arrested people have a subsidized public defender (public attorney), but all the rest of us law-abiding poor people are out in the cold?

People with a lot of money can always afford things that those with less cannot. Forcing people to pay other peoples bills is immoral.

Why should we as a country employ who knows how many, tens of thousands of public school teachers for our collective and individual benefit, and not lawyers?

Public schools are an immoral disaster.

Aren't we a nation of laws?

Yes, like laws against theft.

Why are those with legal representation always better off in this country than those without, all other things being equal?

Because they can afford it with their OWN money.
You should really start respecting God's command "Thou shalt not steal".

 

[Clete]

Universal legal representation would defend common citizens against a threat like this from ever happening to them, or at least making it a lot harder for it to happen.

No, it wouldn't. It would just turn lawyers into slaves and you'd get the same quality of legal representation from them that you'd expect from any other sort of slave. Do you like the quality of service we're getting out of public school teachers? I can promise you that lawyers would be worse!

Why should Trump and other rich people have this kind of protection, and arrested people have a subsidized public defender (public attorney), but all the rest of us law-abiding poor people are out in the cold?

The problem isn't the legal representation, its the law itself. When the laws are unjust, there isn't any way to fix it other than to repeal the unjust laws. Turning lawyers into slaves just enables and perpetuates the injustice. Indeed, the idea of free legal services is born of the very same premise as the unjust laws you want to protect people from.

Why should we as a country employ who knows how many, tens of thousands of public school teachers for our collective and individual benefit, and not lawyers?

We shouldn't! There should be no such thing as a public school system and thus, no such thing as a public school teacher.

How about shoe making, Idolater? Why should rich people get all the best shoes? Shouldn't the government provide shoes for everyone?
I'm a home inspector! Why shouldn't we have universal home inspecting services available? Should poor people just have to trust the house they want to live in isn't going to burn down?
How about medical services? Why should only the rich people get all the best medicines and medical services?
Why should the rich be the only beautiful people? Shouldn't plastic surgery services be made universally available?
I love my dog but don't always have time to walk him like I should. Rich people get to pay someone to walk their dogs, why shouldn't I get to do that? Let's make dog walking services universally available!
Why should Trump and other rich people be the only ones that have nice sports cars?! Universal super cars! I want a Lamborghini!

Aren't we a nation of laws? Why are those with legal representation always better off in this country than those without, all other things being equal?

We are indeed a nation of laws. The problem is that we are a nation of unjust laws. This country has lost sight of what justice looks like so long ago that any advocacy of actual justice is repulsive to most Americans. We feed, clothe, bathe and house people for committing the most heinous crimes and call it punishment. The state charges fines when someone breaks completely arbitrary laws that are enforced literally at the sole discretion of agents of the state and no one even notices neither the arbitrary nature of the law nor the conflict of interest.

The bottom line is that more injustice is not a fix for an unjust system. Making legal services universal is just so much stealing as is every other form of socialism, which is what you're advocating, whether you realize it or not and no justice can come from theft.

Clete

 

[Idolater]

Such makes it easier to use the law as a weapon against the innocent.

No, that's impossible for it to be easier to do when everybody has a lawyer.

... Law-abiding poor people should be equal under the law to rich people.

We already are that. This thread is about public attorneys, provided to the public free of charge (subsidized from government revenue).

... We shouldn't have lawyers at all.

That makes no sense. Lawyers are the experts in the law. You're saying we shouldn't have any experts in the law, in a nation of laws?

Yes. Too many laws.

Universal legal representation will lead to fewer, better laws. iow the OP suggests a solution to this problem.

Because we don't have the best legal system in the world.

Can you define your term "legal system?" Does this include the courts, the police, the laws? Lawyers?

We have the best paid lawyers in the world.

Is there something wrong with earning a good living from doing a good job?

Remember what I said about the law being used as a weapon?

No.

 

[Idolater]

No, it wouldn't.

Yes it would. It's impossible for it to be otherwise.

It would just turn lawyers into slaves

We already have what the OP proposes in a small measure, and public defenders are not slaves, not even rhetorically.

and you'd get the same quality of legal representation from them that you'd expect from any other sort of slave. Do you like the quality of service we're getting out of public school teachers? I can promise you that lawyers would be worse!

I promise you that having even middling legal representation will lead to more justice than having no legal representation.

The problem isn't the legal representation, its the law itself. When the laws are unjust, there isn't any way to fix it other than to repeal the unjust laws.

The problem is not unjust law, which I think is minuscule by comparison to all our laws which are just. The problem is people being unjust, and their victims not having even middling legal representation in most negotiations and disputes.

Turning lawyers into slaves just enables and perpetuates the injustice.

Certainly forced slavery is unjust, and nobody's promoting forced slavery.

Indeed, the idea of free legal services is born of the very same premise as the unjust laws you want to protect people from.

So the existence of public defenders promotes injustice, rather than the opposite?

We shouldn't! There should be no such thing as a public school system and thus, no such thing as a public school teacher.

OK fine. Your ideological position is noted. But my question just takes the current reality as reality and asks, if we can have this, then why not that?

How about shoe making, Idolater? Why should rich people get all the best shoes? Shouldn't the government provide shoes for everyone?
I'm a home inspector! Why shouldn't we have universal home inspecting services available? Should poor people just have to trust the house they want to live in isn't going to burn down?
How about medical services? Why should only the rich people get all the best medicines and medical services?
Why should the rich be the only beautiful people? Shouldn't plastic surgery services be made universally available?
I love my dog but don't always have time to walk him like I should. Rich people get to pay someone to walk their dogs, why shouldn't I get to do that? Let's make dog walking services universally available!
Why should Trump and other rich people be the only ones that have nice sports cars?! Universal super cars! I want a Lamborghini!

With universal legal representation all your questions and or problems will be answered, legally.

We are indeed a nation of laws. The problem is that we are a nation of unjust laws. This country has lost sight of what justice looks like so long ago that any advocacy of actual justice is repulsive to most Americans. We feed, clothe, bathe and house people for committing the most heinous crimes and call it punishment. The state charges fines when someone breaks completely arbitrary laws that are enforced literally at the sole discretion of agents of the state and no one even notices neither the arbitrary nature of the law nor the conflict of interest.

Again, the OP's proposal will fix these problems eventually. Any existing unjust laws will be exterminated slowly and surely when everybody is lawyered up.

The bottom line is that more injustice is not a fix for an unjust system.

Good thing no one's advocating for more injustice then.

Making legal services universal is just so much stealing as is every other form of socialism, which is what you're advocating, whether you realize it or not and no justice can come from theft.

Clete

Your ideological preference is noted.

 

[TomO]

No, it wouldn't. It would just turn lawyers into slaves....

Hey...Waitaminnit...This might be a good idea after all then.

 

[Clete]

Yes it would. It's impossible for it to be otherwise.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

Besides, we have universal legal services, free of charge, in all criminal proceedings already. Just ask someone who's ever been represented by a free lawyer whether he was worth more than what he got paid?

We already have what the OP proposes in a small measure, and public defenders are not slaves, not even rhetorically.

I suppose it depends on your definition of slave. It is probably more accurate to call the people who are paying the lawyer's salary the slave since it is their lives that are being spent to put food on his table.

The right to life is the source of all rights -- and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.

If you take my money (i.e. my property) by force so as to pay a lawyer to give legal service to someone who either can't or won't pay for it themselves, then you turn me into a slave because I produced something of value that someone was willing to pay me money for and then that money was consumed by someone who hadn't earned it in the form of legal services. It's theft, pure and simple.

It only stands to reason that where there's sacrifice, there's someone collecting the sacrificial offerings. Where there's service, there is someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice is speaking of slaves and masters, and intends to be the master.

I promise you that having even middling legal representation will lead to more justice than having no legal representation.

Not if the laws are unjust Idolator. Lawyers do not make the law, they practice it. In other words, the more just the laws, the less representation is necessary. Just laws are understood by third grade children.

The problem is not unjust law, which I think is minuscule by comparison to all our laws which are just.

You're blind as can be!

Tell me, what would justice look like for the murderer?

What is the just punishment for a rapist?

How about a thief? What should be done with a thief?

You won't even answer because you don't know.

The problem is people being unjust, and their victims not having even middling legal representation in most negotiations and disputes.

If the laws were just, they wouldn't need lawyers by and large because unjust people wouldn't exist to nearly the degree that they currently do. In this society, people think that what is legal is what is right. It's called legal positivism and your proposal would make it ten thousand times worse.

Certainly forced slavery is unjust, and nobody's promoting forced slavery.

You are!

Where are these "free" lawyers going to come form, Santa Clause? Do you think that they are really going to just willingly show up to work for free or is it that you intend to pay them to show up on my dime, that the government will be taking from me BY FORCE!

So the existence of public defenders promotes injustice, rather than the opposite?

Totally!

All such policies are based on theft. You're either forcing the lawyer to work for free or your forcing someone else work for the lawyer's and his client's benefit. The only ones who benefit are the recipients of the stolen goods.

OK fine. Your ideological position is noted. But my question just takes the current reality as reality and asks, if we can have this, then why not that?

I knew that, which is why I gave you a whole list of questions based precisely on the exact same premise, which you promptly ignored!

With universal legal representation all your questions and or problems will be answered, legally.

You can flippantly blow off those questions but you're only arguing against yourself. Those questions are all based on YOUR premise! If they are invalid, so is yours.

Again, the OP's proposal will fix these problems eventually. Any existing unjust laws will be exterminated slowly and surely when everybody is lawyered up.

Foolish nonsense!
What on earth has gotten you convinced of such a thing? What biblical principle taught you this. What precept of history shines as even a partial example of such a miraculous beacon of societal evolution?

Good thing no one's advocating for more injustice then.

The whole point is that it is you who are advocating it, Idolater!

What is it that you think, "Thou shalt not steal." means?

God didn't stop with, "Thou shalt not steal" and other commandments like it. He also explicitly explained what the government should do with people who commit crimes and guess what? There's no mention of the government paying for everyone's lawyers!

Your ideological preference is noted.

So is yours!

What I hope to get you to see is that yours is based on theft. Taking by force from the rich to give to the poor is evil. And it hurts the poor much more than it does the rich, by the way.


If you want to advocate a change in our current system, try advocating something that wouldn't make it worse. For example, if a plaintiff loses in a law suit, he has to pay to make the defendant whole. Meaning that if you sue someone and lose, you have to pay not just for the defendant's legal fees but for every dime he's lost as a result of your law suit. Now that's a reform I could get behind! It will never ever ever never happen in this country because it's lawyer's who make the laws and they would know how big a dent in their industry such a reform would make but we advocate for what's right, not what's expedient, right?

Clete

 

[Right Divider]

No, that's impossible for it to be easier to do when everybody has a lawyer.

Where does the money come from to pay these lawyers?

We already are that. This thread is about public attorneys, provided to the public free of charge (subsidized from government revenue).

Why not make everything free to the public?

 

[JudgeRightly]

No, that's impossible for it to be easier to do when everybody has a lawyer.

It's ALREADY BEING DONE, Idolater!

The first example that comes to mind is Masterpiece Cake Shop. Both "sides" are legally represented, but MCS has had lawsuit after lawsuit filed against them for not catering to the perverts.

Do you see the problem? Even if they were to win every single lawsuit filed against them, they are losing money that they SHOULD be allowed to reinvest in their business.

The only consequence for the other side? Only a fraction of the total amount of costs for filing all the lawsuits against MCS is split among all the perverts who file the lawsuits.

They win, monetarily speaking, while the business owner's name is repeatedly dragged through the mud.

We already are that.

No.

What I mean is that neither poor people nor rich people should require legal representation, because such legal representation, as Clete mentioned, aside from not being necessary to begin with, would force someone to potentially defend people who actually committed crimes, and not only that, but they would be paid to do it!

Talk about bribery, and conspiracy after the fact!

It LITERALLY PROMOTES CRIME.

This thread is about public attorneys, provided to the public free of charge (subsidized from government revenue).

Where do you think that government revenue comes from?

It comes from you and me. I don't want my tax dollars to be spent on lawyers so that they can help criminals get away with their crimes.

That makes no sense.

It makes perfect sense, once you get your head out of the sand.

Get rid of lawyers because they are simply unneeded in a just system.

Lawyers are the experts in the law.

The only reason we need experts in the law is because the law is so complicated.

The reason its complicated is because that makes it easier to use as a weapon against the innocent.

You're saying we shouldn't have any experts in the law, in a nation of laws?

I'm saying that EVERYONE should be an expert in the law, since the law should be easy enough for EVERYONE to understand, not just lawyers.

Lawyers are a redundant part of a system if the law is simple and everyone can understand it.

Universal legal representation will lead to fewer, better laws.

What gave you that idea?

Because so far, it's only increased the number of laws.

iow the OP suggests a solution to this problem.

A solution that does not work.

Can you define your term "legal system?" Does this include the courts, the police, the laws? Lawyers?

yes.

Is there something wrong with earning a good living from doing a good job?

There is when that job is defending criminals, and getting paid to do it.

It's WRONG do defend wrongdoing, it's WRONG to even ATTEMPT to justify criminal acts, let alone get paid to do so.

No.

Yes.

I promise you that having even middling legal representation will lead to more justice than having no legal representation.

Why? Why would it lead to more justice, when as Clete has pointed out, it's literally based on injustice?

Your promise means absolutely nothing in the face of history.

The problem is not unjust law,

Unjust law is only PART of the problem, but it is the root of the problems we have.

which I think is minuscule by comparison to all our laws which are just.

The very fact that we have so many laws is unjust.

The problem is people being unjust, and their victims not having even middling legal representation in most negotiations and disputes.

No, the problem is that people are cruel to each other, and the law is unjust, and no one knows right from wrong, least of all lawyers, because the law is too convoluted for its own good.

The solution is to simplify the law, get rid of lawyers (except for when they are needed for large or complex contracts between entities), and implement punishments for crimes that make it not so that men cannot commit crime, but that make it so that WON'T commit crime.

So the existence of public defenders promotes injustice, rather than the opposite?

Yes, because it is, by definition, unjust.

With universal legal representation all your questions and or problems will be answered, legally.

No, they won't. As Clete pointed out, you cannot solve injustice with injustice, no matter how appealing.

Again, the OP's proposal will fix these problems eventually.

No, it won't.

Any existing unjust laws will be exterminated slowly and surely when everybody is lawyered up.

False.

Good thing no one's advocating for more injustice then.

You are.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Tell that to Donald Trump.

They aren't afraid to burn down your whole life if you say the wrong thing and they're happy to turn you into a ward of the state if you commit what they consider to be a crime. The left has no problem with enforcing arbitrary laws but let someone advocate for actual justice and they'll label that person a barbarian and they'll see to it that he's silenced, especially if his "barbaric" ideas start to get any traction.

The only consequences Donald Trump has been facing have been ones of his own making. Hardly been silenced either as with oodles of fake tan, he announced his intention to run again for presidency in 2024 a short while ago...

 

[Idolater]

The only consequences Donald Trump has been facing have been ones of his own making. Hardly been silenced either as with oodles of fake tan, he announced his intention to run again for presidency in 2024 a short while ago...

He's not a crook.

 

[Clete]

The only consequences Donald Trump has been facing have been ones of his own making. Hardly been silenced either as with oodles of fake tan, he announced his intention to run again for presidency in 2024 a short while ago...

You're an idiot. You need to wake up!

 

[ok doser]

He's not a crook.

He made his career doing development projects in New York City and Atlantic City and elsewhere.

He's probably a crook.

 

[TomO]

The only consequences Donald Trump has been facing have been ones of his own making. Hardly been silenced either as with oodles of fake tan, he announced his intention to run again for presidency in 2024 a short while ago...

Noooooo...That's not exactly accurate. He has been under assault by the media and the political class from day one. ...And it wasn't because he was such a horrible human being. They loved him prior to 2016.

He's not a crook.

He made his career doing development projects in New York City and Atlantic City and elsewhere.

He's probably a crook.

Yeah, probably...

 

[ok doser]

They loved him prior to 2016.

Somewhere on YouTube you can find a vid of him getting love from the harpies on The View. I have a strong mental image of Joy Behar tousling his hair.

 

[TomO]

Somewhere on YouTube you can find a vid of him getting love from the harpies on The View. I have a strong mental image of Joy Behar tousling his hair.

My favorite was always Oprah and her audience begging him to run for President.

 

[Idolater]

He made his career doing development projects in New York City and Atlantic City and elsewhere.

He's probably a crook.

Undeniably he's a poor judge of character. But that's not crooked.

 

[Idolater]

So is yours!

Is it? Do you understand that my political ideology is basically Constitutional Originalism? And that it's based upon the idea that we have universal, inalienable rights? And that perhaps the one right which we all possess both individually and collectively, is the right to justice? Is this the political ideology that you note that I have?

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1588209145135628288

My political ideology is the United States of America Constitution. My political ideology is informed by and founded upon the belief in our rights. I believe our rights come from God, but anybody who shares my belief in our rights----even atheists----can join me in this ideology (ideology is a plan to improve society).

Universal legal representation is proposed in the OP as an improvement to our constitution (regime). As an improvement in securing justice for everybody who lives here. What we already have in our constitution is the best politics going, I am offering a proposed improvement to the best politics going. What I propose is consistent with my political ideology.