Capitalism and the rule of law

[minkymurph]

Human trafficking is a crime in any civilized society and would be a crime in a Capitalistic society. No economic system exists to prevent crime. That is why a Capitalistic society depends on police to enforce objective laws and the courts to settle contract disputes…

Then we need Contract Law. I suggested at the start of this thread we begin with a discussion about Contract Law. As yet, no one has taken up the offer.

Now as to Employment Law (shudder)

Employment is in itself a mutually beneficial contractual arrangement. It can be as simple as:…you work for me—I pay you money. The boss gets his job done and the worker get a paycheck…everyone is happy.

I also see Employment Law as regulation of Contract. That said, Equality legislation doesn’t, Thus, while Equality legislation encompasses Employment Law it is rights based. Thus, I whilst I understand the comments you have made below, and I will address these comments below, I don’t see a valid argument in support of the position such law is not needed.

You know that I am not a big fan of laws or unions telling me who and how to hire and/or fire. Sooooo…

I wouldn’t expect you to be a big fan of unions Zolt. If I was you there is every possibility I would think the same way. But try and see things from my perspective.

As you know I am an ardent Trade Unionist, Always have been always will be. That is who I am. The role of the trade union rep is to protect jobs. To me, that does not mean being unrealistic or dictating who an employer can hire and fire in terms of the individual.
There is much more to be gained through negotiation and in the UK, trade unionism is more about collective bargaining than industrial action. Health and Safety at work is an example. On this point management and unions should be singing from the same hymn sheet. Yes, employers/managers have budgets but they should be able to meet what is reasonable and it can be validly argued they should not compromise the safety of their employees for profit. Consider the Bhopal disaster which was a case of corporate manslaughter.

In my experience unions are less militant when they have legislation to rely on because there is no need for militancy when management and unions work together. Now we have legislation trade unionism involves collective bargaining much more than industrial action. Industrial action harms the workforce as much as the employer if not more, and should be a last resort.

In terms of firing someone unions are concerned about adherence to proper procedure for dismissal in order to prevent the employer acting arbitrarily - such as my situation - firing someone on the back of a lie because they asserted their individual rights. In terms of hiring, the objective of the union is enable individuals to access the workplace irrespective of their gender, sexual orientation, marital status or disability. It cannot be validly be argued no one would refuse to hire an individual for the reasons I have stated.

Now if I find an employee who is not “working” for me (poor performance, incapable, lazy, bad attitude etc.) why should I pay him? Like wise, if an employee can be paid more for the same job by a different employer…why should he work for me?

I don’t see that the law prevents employers from dismissing a lazy, poorly performing employee. Nor does it prevent and employee from working for someone else who pays them more - and nor should it. There is no law that says you cannot fire a lazy, poorly performing employee and neither should their be. They are a burden to their colleagues and keeping someone who is unemployed out of a job.

I have represented people who in my personal view were only keeping a good employee out of a job and were nothing but a burden on their colleagues - but that is the nature of the beast. If someone is a fully paid up member of union they are entitled to representation. It’s like Criminal Defense lawyers. It’s not a reflection on what I think privately. The unfortunate fall out is if you fail to successfully defend an employee Our Lord himself couldn’t save, it’s still your fault and you colluded with management. Again - that is the nature of the beast.

It is really pretty simple. I know there are hundreds of “what ifs” . But just apply the “you work for me—I pay you money” rule and see how uncomplicated and unnecessary the Employment Law becomes.

It should be that simple Zolt and it it was, we would not need Employment Law. But it is not. I have represented more people who were sacked, turned down for promotion, or given a hard time by their boss and marginalized by colleagues for arbitrary reasons than lazy, poorly performing employees.

 

[exnihilo]

Would you reject the argument they can become monopolies in the absence of state power?

Yes. A monopoly is only the creation of the state. The term is mostly misused. Without a monopoly competition can enter the market. If the competition is unprofitable then it will not survive. But that suggests the existing business is providing the service at a good price. Furthermore the first of every kind of business would be a monopoly under this definition since it necessarily has no other competition.

This is simply untrue. Perfect markets are not guaranteed in capitalism. Are you confusing “capitalism” with an environment of “Perfect Competition”? The latter is a theoretical model of markets in which no one entity has materially greater advantage (scale, costs, access to resources, etc.) than any other. It is rare.

I don’t know what you mean by perfect markets. But whatever you mean I don’t suspect you have perfect bureaucracies either. The value of the market is that it is the best means to allocate resources. All other means are worse.

I’ve not advocated this - why ask me? I think we all agree monopolies pursued for self-interest are bad. Let’s not have them. It seems crazy to me to argue that no regulation is better than some because the latter might lead to corruption.

Monopolies are not pursued they are granted. They are bad because it is the legal limiting of competition.

If corruption is even possible then you haven’t escaped the problem you have tried to solve. Every time government regulation fails to protect people the solution presented is always more regulation. That is like trying to put a fire out with oxygen and thinking more oxygen will do the trick.

 

[minkymurph]

Yes. A monopoly is only the creation of the state. The term is mostly misused. Without a monopoly competition can enter the market. If the competition is unprofitable then it will not survive. But that suggests the existing business is providing the service at a good price. Furthermore the first of every kind of business would be a monopoly under this definition since it necessarily has no other competition.

The question I would pose to this response would be how would you say the state creates monopolies?

That said, this is a legal debate. In exact terms, what laws - specific laws - should exist in a capitalist society? I am enough of a realist to know consensus of opinion is not going to be reached on certain economic issues. Thus, we could go round in ever decreasing circles debating what constitutes a monopoly in the firm belief we are right irrespective of what anyone else says or what evidence they produce. There are some things individuals will never agree on, but every society needs laws and this thread is about what the law should be.

 

[minkymurph]

For the purpose of directing the path of this thread in that it is a legal debate, I would like to introduce an alternative phrase to 'unbridled, unrestrained (or whatever) capitalism.

The phrase I will use is ‘unconscionable capitalism.’ I am hoping no one will insult my intelligence by arguing there are no unconscionable capitalists as a ‘real’ capitalist would not act unconscionably.

It is a fact individuals do act unconscionably and my argument is in the interests of social justice the law must restrain unconscionable capitalism.

Next question - what laws should be passed to restrain unconscionable capitalism?

Is that better folks?

 

[Rau]

…I don’t know what you mean by perfect markets. But whatever you mean I don’t suspect you have perfect bureaucracies either. The value of the market is that it is the best means to allocate resources. All other means are worse.

Perfect Markets is covered in Economics 101. They are theoretical - few if any have ever or could ever exist, but they are essential to the nirvana required if capitalism wil NIL regulation were to be tolerable.

Yes, markets are generally the best means to allocate resources. Experience and economic theory demonstrates that some regulation is required to avoid other unsatisfactory outcomes.

 

[minkymurph]

Perfect Markets is covered in Economics 101. They are theoretical - few if any have ever or could ever exist, but they are essential to the nirvana required if capitalism wil NIL regulation were to be tolerable.

Yes, markets are generally the best means to allocate resources. Experience and economic theory demonstrates that some regulation is required to avoid other unsatisfactory outcomes.

Come on people. NO ONE IS SAYING HERE NO CAPITALISM!!!

Have you got it? Good!

Now lets move on. THE LAW. Got that?

Capitalism needs to be regulated by law. The reason it needs to regulated is because if it was not, we have arbitrary contracts in which the party with superior negotiating power will abuse that power, individuals will look ‘rights’ in terms of their own wants and needs irrespective of how it impacts on other individuals or society as a whole. Is anyone going to insult my intelligence by arguing, ‘Oh no, no one would do that?’

If one individual would potentially do something arbitrary we need a law. Theft, murder, rape. They are all unlawful. Does that mean it doesn’t happen? Slavery is unlawful. Does that mean it doesn’t happen?

There was a Civil War in the US over slavery. Now it is unlawful are we supposed to believe it doesn’t happen?

Fellow citizens, (I believe we are all citizens of the world) stop defending capitalism. You don’t need to. We know. No one is saying, ‘no capitalism at all.’ What is being said is that in a capitalist society the government will have to interfere whether they like it or not for the sake of social justice.

If you don’t think the government needs to interfere with business or the economy in a capitalist society for the sake of social justice, present the argument.Don’t just say you think this, present an argument that in your view if difficult to refute. It may be argued it is the only system that upholds individual rights. In terms of the law explain how - I say you can’t. Prove me wrong and, ‘I’m right’ won’t cut it.

I don’t expect everyone here to agree with me, and there is no reason why they should, but I really believe in what I say. I do not believe I am right and everyone should agree with me, but I am committed to what I say and not purely for my own individual benefit. I firmly believe what I say on law benefits society as a whole. Now - who wants to challenge me on law? I argue no one who disagrees with me will challenge me on the law because they know the can’t.

Arrogant? Yes. But arrogant because I firmly believe in the principles I adhered to. The gauntlet has been thrown down. Whose willing to take me on in a legal argument?

 

[Rau]

Come on people. NO ONE IS SAYING HERE NO CAPITALISM!!!

Have you got it? Good!

Now lets move on. THE LAW. Got that?

Capitalism needs to be regulated by law. The reason it needs to regulated is because if it was not, we have arbitrary contracts in which the party with superior negotiating power will abuse that power, individuals will look ‘rights’ in terms of their own wants and needs irrespective of how it impacts on other individuals or society as a whole. Is anyone going to insult my intelligence by arguing, ‘Oh no, no one would do that?’

If one individual would potentially do something arbitrary we need a law. Theft, murder, rape. They are all unlawful. Does that mean it doesn’t happen? Slavery is unlawful. Does that mean it doesn’t happen?

There was a Civil War in the US over slavery. Now it is unlawful are we supposed to believe it doesn’t happen?

Fellow citizens, (I believe we are all citizens of the world) stop defending capitalism. You don’t need to. We know. No one is saying, ‘no capitalism at all.’ What is being said is that in a capitalist society the government will have to interfere whether they like it or not for the sake of social justice.

If you don’t think the government needs to interfere with business or the economy in a capitalist society for the sake of social justice, present the argument.Don’t just say you think this, present an argument that in your view if difficult to refute. It may be argued it is the only system that upholds individual rights. In terms of the law explain how - I say you can’t. Prove me wrong and, ‘I’m right’ won’t cut it.

I don’t expect everyone here to agree with me, and there is no reason why they should, but I really believe in what I say. I do not believe I am right and everyone should agree with me, but I am committed to what I say and not purely for my own individual benefit. I firmly believe what I say on law benefits society as a whole. Now - who wants to challenge me on law? I argue no one who disagrees with me will challenge me on the law because they know the can’t.

Arrogant? Yes. But arrogant because I firmly believe in the principles I adhered to. The gauntlet has been thrown down. Whose willing to take me on in a legal argument?

Why do you direct these remarks to me?? I agree with you. Zoltan and Exnihilo take a different view on the need to regulate capitalism. The baseless idea that pure capitalism entrenches perfect markets is one of their arguments for asserting that no regulation is needed. By implication they don’t accept the power imbalance that is the natural outcome in capitalism, and which is the raisin d’être for unions, for regulation and so forth.

 

[minkymurph]

Why do you direct these remarks to me?? I agree with you. Zoltan and Exnihilo take a different view on the need to regulate capitalism. The baseless idea that pure capitalism entrenches perfect markets is one of their arguments for asserting that no regulation is needed. By implication they don’t accept the power imbalance that is the natural outcome in capitalism, and which is the raisin d’être for unions, for regulation and so forth.

Come on Rau this is not a personal vendetta. I addressed the remarks to you because I was responding to our post. It cannot be said I have not responded to anyone else’s. Was I not supposed to respond to your post?

Zoltan and I know each other well on the forums and we have had many an intense debate. I have replied to Zoltan many times on this thread and whilst we don’t agree, I’d like to think we have developed a healthy respect for each other.

I intended this thread to be a positive one not a negative one. If you think regulation is needed, in terms of law what do you think that regulation should be? That is the point of this thread.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

For the purpose of directing the path of this thread in that it is a legal debate, I would like to introduce an alternative phrase to 'unbridled, unrestrained (or whatever) capitalism.

The phrase I will use is ‘unconscionable capitalism.’ I am hoping no one will insult my intelligence by arguing there are no unconscionable capitalists as a ‘real’ capitalist would not act unconscionably.

When you talk like that I get the feeling that you are domineering the discussion by defining terms to suit your contentions.

It is a fact individuals do act unconscionably and my argument is in the interests of social justice the law must restrain unconscionable capitalism.

The operative term here is “INDIVIDUALS”.

Just as individuals who cheat the welfare system or steal from their employers become criminals so do capitalists who commit crimes.

Next question - what laws should be passed to restrain unconscionable capitalism?

If the “act of unconscionabliness” were made illegal then a capitalist who was unconscionable should be treated just like a welfare cheat or thief…charged, tried and punished.

I might add that IF a law against “unconscionabliness” were passed, it would have to be equally applied to government bureaucrats, judges, lawyers, and politicians to be legitimate.

Now let me address this idea of social justice.

Social justice, in my perspective, is the primary reason Capitalism cannot work in today’s society.

Capitalism by its very nature does not permit anyone to expect or demand, to give or to take the unearned.

Social justice is based on an altruist morality and relies on government to “spread-the-wealth”.

Two opposite poles.

 

[minkymurph]

When you talk like that I get the feeling that you are domineering the discussion by defining terms to suit your contentions. :

Of course I will attempt to determine the course of the thread and define terms to suit my contentions. I am attempting to make a successful argument in support of my position. I’m hardly going to refute my own arguments.

The operative term here is “INDIVIDUALS”.

Just as individuals who cheat the welfare system or steal from their employers become criminals so do capitalists who commit crimes.

Agreed - and those who cheat the welfare system harm those who are most vulnerable and most in need of it to the greatest extent. It is fraud which is a crime worthy of a custodial sentence.

If the “act of unconscionabliness” were made illegal then a capitalist who was unconscionable should be treated just like a welfare cheat or thief…charged, tried and punished.

Agreed

I might add that IF a law against “unconscionabliness” were passed, it would have to be equally applied to government bureaucrats, judges, lawyers, and politicians to be legitimate.

‘Unconscionable’ is a legal term Zolt. That is why I used it and unconscionable dealings may be held by a court to be unlawful and in theory at least, it is equally applied. That said, the law is not perfect and individuals may on occasion escape Justice, but make a practice of it and sooner or later you will run out of lives.

You may find this landmark case of interest. Sorry for not providing an academic source. I can if you wish.

articles.latimes.com/2001/oct/13/local/me-56770

In my view the doctors in this case acted unconscionably and the dissenting judge took them to pieces in his speech. Moore lost the case. If the case had been tried in the UK the decision may have been different as he could have relied on unconscionable dealings. There is no doubt the decision of the majority was a policy decision, and I can understand why they decided as they did, but his case relates to property law Zolt which is why I though you may be interested, and prompted discussion on legislation pertaining to contemporary property issues as the current law is insufficient to address contemporary issues.

Now let me address this idea of social justice.

Social justice, in my perspective, is the primary reason Capitalism cannot work in today’s society.

Capitalism by its very nature does not permit anyone to expect or demand, to give or to take the unearned.

Social justice is based on an altruist morality and relies on government to “spread-the-wealth”.

Two opposite poles.

Social justice as I understand it is justice in terms of the distribution of wealth, opportunities, and privileges within a society. It is true we all have different perceptions of what that entails but irrespective of their position, I don’t anyone will argue it is just to distribute wealth unjustly, or on application it is just that opportunities and privileges should operate unjustly.

To be clear, I firmly believe in individual autonomy. Autonomy does not allow for what you describe. To me, autonomy means empowering people to be self-reliant, helping them to help themselves to the point where they can be financially and economically autonomous and stand on their own two feet. That does not mean that in terms of wealth everyone should have the same. Some people are happy with less and others are never happy no matter how much they have. It is about autonomy.

Thus, my perception of social justice is not that people have the right to expect, demand, receive or take what they have not earned. It’s about empowering them to earn, and using the law when they are arbitrarily and through no fault of their own impeded in their attempts to earn.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoltan Cobalt View Post
The operative term here is “INDIVIDUALS”.

Just as individuals who cheat the welfare system or steal from their employers become criminals so do capitalists who commit crimes.

Agreed - and those who cheat the welfare system harm those who are most vulnerable and most in need of it to the greatest extent. It is fraud which is a crime worthy of a custodial sentence.

Because some individual capitalists have cheated, defrauded, and lived too well, your solution is to pile more regulations onto an already over regulated economic system.

Applying that concept to a Welfare System, wherein some individuals have cheated and defrauded, your solution would have to be a massive reduction of the benefits provided by the system.

 

[freeRadical]

When you talk like that I get the feeling that you are domineering the discussion by defining terms to suit your contentions.

The operative term here is “INDIVIDUALS”.

Just as individuals who cheat the welfare system or steal from their employers become criminals so do capitalists who commit crimes.

If the “act of unconscionabliness” were made illegal then a capitalist who was unconscionable should be treated just like a welfare cheat or thief…charged, tried and punished.

I might add that IF a law against “unconscionabliness” were passed, it would have to be equally applied to government bureaucrats, judges, lawyers, and politicians to be legitimate.

Now let me address this idea of social justice.

Social justice, in my perspective, is the primary reason Capitalism cannot work in today’s society.

Capitalism by its very nature does not permit anyone to expect or demand, to give or to take the unearned.

Social justice is based on an altruist morality and relies on government to “spread-the-wealth”.

Two opposite poles.

I see that, that in my absence, you are still pushing the idea that you cannot have a Capitalistic economic system and social welfare. Friedman and Hayek seem to disagree with you as well as Smith. Why should I believe you over them? The two are not mutually exclusive.

 

[minkymurph]

Because some individual capitalists have cheated, defrauded, and lived too well, your solution is to pile more regulations onto an already over regulated economic system.

i wouldn’t say more regulations on an already over regulated economic system Zolt. I detest bureaucracy because bureaucracy means individuals who have not been elected invent rules for the sake of rules and to justify their existence.

Law is not merely rules. Bureaucracy is merely rules. I am a great believer in, ‘don’t fix what’s not broke.’ i would also agree with you we should be free to contract with whom we please. For example, at the risk of disclosing my criminal activity :bigyikes:
a young girl who lives around the corner from me looks after my youngest son on occasion. I pay her more than the minimum wage and she is worth every penny. Now if the state knew, they would want their tax cut and the bureaucrats would probably be saying, 'she doesn’t have a Childminder certificate, a First Aid Certificate, and she has not been Police checked. BAD MOMMY!!!

I AM THE CHILD’S MOTHER!!! I DECIDE!!! It has nothing to do with the state and I will pay her what I like and it has nothing to do with the state. I am taxed on the money I pay her so they can get lost.

As I said Zolt, it not about regulation. It’s about preserving the rule of law in that everyone, irrespective of who they are or how much money, power and influence they have they are still subject to the rule of law.

That said, every law should have a rationale. The state insults my intelligence by telling me I must have someone police checked with all these certificates for child safety. It is not for child safety. It is to justify the existence of the bureaucrat who has not been elected. The rationale of the law should be for Justice to prevail. It should attempt to create a Just society. When injustice exists, the law should step in.

Applying that concept to a Welfare System, wherein some individuals have cheated and defrauded, your solution would have to be a massive reduction of the benefits provided by the system.

You could put it that way. I would like to live in a society where no one needs to live on benefit. How can you possibly become an autonomous individual if you go through life relying on benefits? That said, there are occasions when for genuine reasons people need benefits - but that reliance should be short term to assist individuals over a crises. That was the rationale for benefits - to help people in crises for the purpose of enabling them to reach the point where they can stand on their own two feet. Receiving state benefit was never intended to be a career. That is dependency culture and dependency culture has no place in the mind of someone (me) who strongly believes in individual autonomy.

So, what I would say is it is not a case of reducing benefits. It is a case of directing them where they are needed most in the short term, and in the long term simultaneously empowering people to get off benefits. Dependency culture puts an arbitrary drain on your fellow citizens, but simply denying benefits leads to begging on the street and criminality. When you take something away you need to replace it with something better. I also firmly believe you should contribute to society in some way for your benefit. As a trade unionist I would not want that contribution to deprive someone of a paid job, but where it does not infringe that then yes, and it is not about being punished for receiving benefits. Doing something productive also helps the individual in terms of purpose and contributing to society. They can gain valuable experience and it gives them something to write on their CV other than ‘unemployed.’

 

[minkymurph]

Zoltan - I want to add this.

Consider this in terms of arbitrary.

I think I would make a good lawyer. I would LOVE to be a lawyer. I want nothing more.

At present, I can’t be one. Want to know why?

I need to ‘pass’ an exam. I say ‘pass’ because there is no pass mark. Each year the Law Society determines how may lawyers the will train. I sat the exam last year and the Law Society offered 20 places. 500 people sat the exam. To be offered a place as lawyer I needed to beat 480 people in that exam. My place was 92. I am a mother of two children and I was up against young people who can devote all their time to the exam, whose mums and dads may be lawyers and can afford a private tutor. Is that just?

I don’t think I will ever be a lawyer. The reason being in my experience there is only one way to beat the system and that is by the systems rules. I don’t think I can, and you have to admit it is a pretty tall order.

Final question - Should legislation be introduced to make it more fair?

 

[Rau]

Zoltan - I want to add this.

Consider this in terms of arbitrary.

I think I would make a good lawyer. I would LOVE to be a lawyer. I want nothing more.

At present, I can’t be one. Want to know why?

I need to ‘pass’ an exam. I say ‘pass’ because there is no pass mark. Each year the Law Society determines how may lawyers the will train. I sat the exam last year and the Law Society offered 20 places. 500 people sat the exam. To be offered a place as lawyer I needed to beat 480 people in that exam. My place was 92. I am a mother of two children and I was up against young people who can devote all their time to the exam, whose mums and dads may be lawyers and can afford a private tutor. Is that just?

I don’t think I will ever be a lawyer. The reason being in my experience there is only one way to beat the system and that is by the systems rules. I don’t think I can, and you have to admit it is a pretty tall order.

Final question - Should legislation be introduced to make it more fair?

It is not unjust on the facts you’ve presented. You would need to present more info regarding how the number of 20 is determined, who pay for the university training etc.

 

[minkymurph]

It is not unjust on the facts you’ve presented. You would need to present more info regarding how the number of 20 is determined, who pay for the university training etc.

The 20 are determined on the basis of their mark in the exam. That said, there is a points system. You get points added for your classification. If you get a 1st you get more points than someone who gets a 2:1. If you get a 2:1 you need more points than someone who gets a 2:2 classification. Thus,you get points for exam, but you also get points for your degree classification and the two are added together to determine your place.

In terms of who pays for university training - in the UK it is either funded by your parents, self funded, or a loan. That means your parents can pay for your university education, or you can pay for it yourself if you have enough money. if you don’t have enough money to pay the fees you take what is know as a student loan. If you take a student loan you borrow your fees from the government and you repay it via income tax. Once you start earning more than 15 000 per year you start repaying your loan and the amount you repay each month is related to your earnings until you repay your loan. Thus, if you start earning 30 000 or 40 000 a year you repay more each month.

I have a student loan and had it not been for the government scheme, I would not have been able to go to university. So - no complaints there. In addition, during term time the government paid two thirds of my childcare.

I was also able to go to university because of what is called an ACCESS scheme in the UK. It was nothing to do with the government. The university introduced it. The university recognized that in the past lots of people wanted a university education but never had the chance. ACCESS gave people like me a chance. You take night classes and if you perform well enough you can go to university. You need a higher overall percentage to take a law degree or study medicine than say history, but it is a brilliant scheme. It really opened doors for people.

 

[Rau]

The 20 are determined on the basis of their mark in the exam.

In terms of who pays for university training - in the UK it is either funded by parents, self funding, or a loan.

Your parents can pay for your university education, you can pay for it yourself if you have enough money, if you don’t you take a government loan. What a government loan means is when you are earning more than 15 000 per year, you start repaying your loan via income tax.

I thought you said the 20 was set a priori - the exam just determines “which 20”.

Does the UK gain only 20 new law students per year? That doesn’t sound right??

 

[freeRadical]

Zoltan - I want to add this.

Consider this in terms of arbitrary.

I think I would make a good lawyer. I would LOVE to be a lawyer. I want nothing more.

At present, I can’t be one. Want to know why?

I need to ‘pass’ an exam. I say ‘pass’ because there is no pass mark. Each year the Law Society determines how may lawyers the will train. I sat the exam last year and the Law Society offered 20 places. 500 people sat the exam. To be offered a place as lawyer I needed to beat 480 people in that exam. My place was 92. I am a mother of two children and I was up against young people who can devote all their time to the exam, whose mums and dads may be lawyers and can afford a private tutor. Is that just?

I don’t think I will ever be a lawyer. The reason being in my experience there is only one way to beat the system and that is by the systems rules. I don’t think I can, and you have to admit it is a pretty tall order.

Final question - Should legislation be introduced to make it more fair?

Who gives the Law Society the power to determine how many lawyers are trained each year?

 

[minkymurph]

I thought you said the 20 was set a priori - the exam just determines “which 20”.

Does the UK gain only 20 new law students per year? That doesn’t sound right??

That is right. I can understand why you say it doesn’t sound right, but I assure you it is.

It has been determined by the Law Society they don’t need to train anymore than 20 lawyers each year.

You can take a Law degree, but you cannot gain an apprenticeship as a lawyer unless you get one of those places.

 

[minkymurph]

Who gives the Law Society the power to determine how many lawyers are trained each year?

The number of lawyers needed for our society is determined by the Law Society. They decide how many lawyers they need to train each year. That is the way it is.