Capitalism and the rule of law

[Rau]

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.

So you have a degree, but not the place in question?

Not unlike a doctor who wishes to enter a particular specialty?

 

[freeRadical]

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.

But who gives them the power to determine that? The government?

 

[Rau]

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.

I power bestowed by the Goverment?

 

[minkymurph]

But who gives them the power to determine that? The government?

Yes.

 

[minkymurph]

So you have a degree, but not the place in question?

Not unlike a doctor who wishes to enter a particular specialty?

That is correct. I have a law degree but if I don’t get one of those places I don’t get to be a lawyer.

I should also explain that in the UK there are barristers and solicitors. Barristers represent people in court. Solicitors don’t. They deal with will, mortgages, divorce but barristers depend on solicitors for work. If a case goes to court a solicitor will approach a barrister to argue the case in court.

When I use the term ‘lawyer’ I am referring to a barrister. That said, to be a solicitor you need a law firm to take you on as an apprentice. Last year, the ‘Institute’ as it is called here offered 30 places to train as a solicitor. Thus, if you don’t get in the top 20 but the top 50 you are placed on the solicitor list. BUT - if you can’t persuade a law firm to take you on as an apprentice you loose your place. So, someone could get a lower mark in the exam but if you have a ‘master’ as it is called here, a law firm willing to take you on, you get the place and an individual who scores a higher mark but doesn’t have a ‘master’ doesn’t
.

 

[freeRadical]

Yes.

So, the Law Society has a government supported monopoly just like the American Medical Association determines how many doctors there are in the US.

It’s not surprising that they restrict the supply of lawyers. That’s what monopolies do. They restrict supply to raise prices.

The point I’m trying to make is that the government is the problem here. Specifically, government supported monopolies. It’s interesting that most monopolies throughout history have only survived for long periods of time because of government support.

To answer your question about the should there be regulation to make it more “fair”. Government regulation is the problem. Less regulation, not more, would help you. As long as the Law Society has the power to restrict supply they will continue to do it.

 

[minkymurph]

So, the Law Society has a government supported monopoly just like the American Medical Association determines how many doctors there are in the US.

It’s not surprising that they restrict the supply of lawyers. That’s what monopolies do. They restrict supply to raise prices.

The point I’m trying to make is that the government is the problem here. Specifically, government supported monopolies. It’s interesting that most monopolies throughout history have only survived for long periods of time because of government support.

To answer your question about the should there be regulation to make it more “fair”. Government regulation is the problem. Less regulation, not more, would help you. As long as the Law Society has the power to restrict supply they will continue to do it.

I understand your reasoning in that the government are supporting a monopoly. But I would say it is not government regulation that is the problem - rather no government regulation. The government are elected and they could change things if they wanted to. They choose not to and let the Law Society do what they want. The government could step in and say you must offer so many places to Law students that have other skills to offer in addition to academic ability.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t begrudge anyone their place as I know they worked hard to get it. I am a parent of two lovely boys and I would have no qualms about pulling strings on their behalf. That’s what parents do. That said, they could reserve some places - say 5 - for people who have a lot to offer decided on the basis of interview, life experience and the fact it was harder for them to score as they did even if it is ‘lower.’

 

[freeRadical]

I understand your reasoning in that the government are supporting a monopoly. But I would say it is not government regulation that is the problem - rather no government regulation. The government are elected and they could change things if they wanted to. They choose not to and let the Law Society do what they want. The government could step in and say you must offer so many places to Law students that have other skills to offer in addition to academic ability.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t begrudge anyone their place as I know they worked hard to get it. I am a parent of two lovely boys and I would have no qualms about pulling strings on their behalf. That’s what parents do. That said, they could reserve some places - say 5 - for people who have a lot to offer decided on the basis of interview, life experience and the fact it was harder for them to score as they did even if it is ‘lower.’

But there is regulation, don’t you see that? Only the Law Society can determine who is a lawyer and the government has given them that power. That is regulation. That’s not free enterprise.

Your solution, a quota system basically, is just more regulation and it will abused by special interests. You will probably see no benefit from it.

Why do we need a special group to determine who can be a lawyer and who can’t?

 

[Rau]

But there is regulation, don’t you see that? Only the Law Society can determine who is a lawyer and the government has given them that power. That is regulation. That’s not free enterprise.

Your solution, a quota system basically, is just more regulation and it will abused by special interests. You will probably see no benefit from it.

Why do we need a special group to determine who can be a lawyer and who can’t?

Thus, by hanging a shingle, a lawyer shall I be?

 

[minkymurph]

But there is regulation, don’t you see that? Only the Law Society can determine who is a lawyer and the government has given them that power. That is regulation. That’s not free enterprise.

Your solution, a quota system basically, is just more regulation and it will abused by special interests. You will probably see no benefit from it.

Why do we need a special group to determine who can be a lawyer and who can’t?

Good questions. You’ve presented me with pretty probing questions that are making me think. I guess we are not going to agree but I LOVE a worthy advocate.

Ready to take me on? I hope so. There is nothing I love better than a good debate.

You are correct. Only the Law Society can determine how many lawyers to train each year. Someone needs to decide how many lawyers our society needs. We could train hundreds of lawyers but if they are not needed, is it a good idea to train hundreds of lawyers?

If the Law Society does not determine how many lawyers should be trained each year, who should? You are correct it is not free enterprise, but can it not be argued people in that profession are best placed to determine how many new lawyers each year are needed?

The population of Northern Ireland is 1.8 million. Thus, we need balanced employment potential. It is not in societies interests to train a disproportionate number of lawyers, doctors, teachers, and so on. If they so, there will be no work for them It is not the number of lawyers that are trained each year I disagree with. It is the selection process. The selection process as it currently stands is denying individuals access to a profession they are more than capable of, and there is something to be said for bringing life experience in addition to many other skills to the legal profession and all other professions
than the ability to pass an exam. That does not mean I think no one with exceptional academic ability should be denied access. The young irrespective of their lack of life experience have a lot to offer and how do you get experience if you never have the opportunity? That said, it is a matter of a balance. A matter of balancing the skills and experience of your workforce and the needs of society.

In my experience, a good mix of youth, creativity and new ideas in conjunction with life experience can be a very good mix. Thus, give individuals the opportunity to contribute to society to the best of their potential.

I can understand what you say about special interest. I have often found ‘special interest’ to be a bit of an insult. I am a committed trade unionist and when I became involved in trade unionism, I often found myself voted onto committees and pushed forward for all sorts of positions simply because I was female. I hated that. I wanted to be pushed on my own merits and because people believed in me and had confidence in me. I would say the same as a lawyer. I want to be a lawyer because people believe I can be a good one. I don’t want anyone saying I made it because of a special concession. I have a disability and there are occasions I have waived concessions I have a right to for that reason.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

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.

Hayek, Friedman and Smith are smart guys and entitled to their opinions but there are differing opinions that agree with me…

John Locke, Murray Rothbard, Ayn Rand, Walter Williams, Leonard Read, Joseph Schumpeter, George Reisman, Hernando de Soto, Tom Bethell, Thomas Sowell, Paul Johnson, Charles Adams, Henry Hazlitt, Israel Kirzner, Dominick Armentano, and Ludwig von Mises.

I maintain that a since Capitalism by its very nature does not permit anyone to expect or demand, to give or to take the unearned…charity (welfare if you will) can effectively be a private affair.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

i wouldn’t say more regulations on an already over regulated economic system Zolt.

But that is exactly what you are proposing…unless you focus on INDIVIDUALS rather than a system.

I detest bureaucracy because bureaucracy means individuals who have not been elected invent rules for the sake of rules and to justify their existence.

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!!!

There was a time in Northern Ireland (and other places in the world) when an honest woman could tell her neighbors that she would be happy to care for children while parents worked in evil capitalist’s factories. She would charge a fair price for her service and everyone benefitted. This is what is called a Free Market. Lenin called it Capitalism…but he was a jerk.

Today a woman (your friend) must have a Childminder certificate, a First Aid Certificate, and she must be Police checked. These are regulations imposed by government. Apparently they are meaningless because you, as a consumer, choose to disregard them. So why have these regulations?

Could it be because the government wants to control who minds your children?

Perhaps the government is building a monopoly on childcare…???

Hmmmm…monopoly = Capitalism = bad!

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.

Everyone, irrespective of who they are or how much money, power and influence they have ARE subject to the rule of law.

I know that we are discussing LAW here, as opposed to regulations and law should take precedence. So what are we afraid of? A woman who takes in children for daycare and sells them into slavery? Unhealthy conditions? A woman who cannot bandage a child’s knee? If laws against such things do not exist…Make laws! But don’t “regulate” the entire occupation out of business.

Example: the bureaucrats who invent rules for the sake of rules and to justify their existence can easily be persuaded by a little graft/corruption to apply those rules in a way that is beneficial to those who would provide the graft. The rule of law would prevent this. So pass laws (not regulations) and enforce them.

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.

In the U.S. we say a law should be “warranted”. Same thing I guess. And I agree. The LAW (rather than arbitrary regulation) should step in.

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.

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.’

Ben Franklin was a Founding Father of the United States. He was a brilliant scientist. diplomat and statesman. He made many trips to Europe while our nation was building.

He said: “I am for doing good to the poor, but…I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed…that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.”

I agree with Ben.

Welfare, no matter how benevolent it seems, has created a dependency society.

Ben also said: “When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic.”

Essentially what he meant was exactly what George Bernard Shaw meant when he said: “A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.”

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

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.

My God, Lady…you would make a FANTASTIC lawyer.

The fact that your government won’t allow you to be all that you can be… proves that you do not live in a free society.

In the U.S. thousands of people take the annual "Bar"Exams in each state. If you pass, you are then licensed to practice law in that state. Convicted felons have studied law while in prison and passed Bar Exams on their release and are working as lawyers. There is no educational requirement. Pass the exam…and poof…you are a lawyer. Of course those with a prestigious law school degree get offers from prestigious law firms to work for them. Others simply “hang out their shingle”.

This is a great case for a Free Market. With an abundance of lawyers…who benefits?..the consumer. Not everyone needs a $million a year law firm on retainer but they can use legal help and with more lawyers…things get competitive. Sure lawyers have standard fees…but I can assure you that many times these fees are waived or modified.

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

Really?

After learning about how your “Law Society” operates…I would suggest completely revising the entire system. Starting with the elimination of the Law Society.

 

[minkymurph]

But that is exactly what you are proposing…unless you focus on INDIVIDUALS rather than a system.

I don’t think systems and individuals exist in isolation from each other. What I am talking about are enabling systems. Systems that serve a necessary purpose and enable or empower individuals to assert their rights.

Yes, everyone has rights. That is why rights needs to balanced in relation to each other. That is what the ‘gay cake’ case I mentioned to you is about Zolt. It’s a test case to see which right will prevail. As defined by EU Convention as that is the current law - The right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion or the right not to suffer discrimination.

There was a time in Northern Ireland (and other places in the world) when an honest woman could tell her neighbors that she would be happy to care for children while parents worked in evil capitalist’s factories. She would charge a fair price for her service and everyone benefitted. This is what is called a Free Market. Lenin called it Capitalism…but he was a jerk.

He was a jerk but you have to admit he was pretty successful at being a jerk and persuading others he was not.

Lenin was an elitist. Social Justice does not allow for elitism. Stalin was dictator. Social Justice does not allow for dictatorship.

The dictatorships of Stalin and Mao Tse Tung demonstrate beyond doubt you cannot collectivize farming. On the point of factories, I would recommend a reality tv show on BBC1 called 24 hours in the past. It is about working in, among other things, factories in Britain during the Victorian Era. It was on last night and Anne Whitcombe, a former Tory MP is in the show, switched allegiance to Labour and started a Trade Union. The issue was a fair days wage for a fair days work.

 

[minkymurph]

Today a woman (your friend) must have a Childminder certificate, a First Aid Certificate, and she must be Police checked. These are regulations imposed by government. Apparently they are meaningless because you, as a consumer, choose to disregard them. So why have these regulations?

Could it be because the government wants to control who minds your children?

Perhaps the government is building a monopoly on childcare…???

Perhaps - monopolies are easier to control. I search the internet a week ago for a suitable childminder. I found several suitable young women on a website. I tried to contact them and found I had to pay £25.00 to view their phone number. :bigyikes::bigyikes::bigyikes::bigyikes:

It can be said the government is to blame in that they allow this to exist. Should they pass a law preventing such practices? Would that constitute interference?

I was in court yesterday Zolt. :bounce:
I volunteered for a Witness Support scheme that supports victims of crime and prosecution witnesses throughout the process. Wait for this - you are going to love this.

The guy I was shadowing related how some ‘peaked cap’ as we call them - that is a public office employee who is NOT elected but thinks they have more authority than those who are, happened to a a witness in a case. The witness support room is where witnesses wait until they are called. We have tea, coffee, toys for kids - I think you get the drift. When this ‘peaked cap’ was waiting in the Crown witness room, there was a radio playing. He confiscated it. Why? Wait for it - the Court did not have an Entertainment’s Licence. Thus, they were not entitled to play a radio to the public.

No smilies - I waiting for your response Zolt.

 

[minkymurph]

Everyone, irrespective of who they are or how much money, power and influence they have ARE subject to the rule of law.

True, but those with wealth, power and influence have greater capacity to circumnavigate laws they don’t like, and those with little wealth, power and influence often find they cannot assert their statutory rights against them.

I know that we are discussing LAW here, as opposed to regulations and law should take precedence. So what are we afraid of? A woman who takes in children for daycare and sells them into slavery? Unhealthy conditions? A woman who cannot bandage a child’s knee? If laws against such things do not exist…Make laws! But don’t “regulate” the entire occupation out of business.

Agreed - I refer to the killjoy radio confiscator.

You raise a good point - law not regulation. Perhaps I did not sufficiently clarify the distinction. I the government bestow statutory rights on individuals, those rights are meaningless unless individuals can assert those rights. Individuals should be able to assert their rights without having to go to court. Court should be a last resort and if unscrupulous individuals were prevented from denying others their statutory rights, the courts would not need to intervene. Those who gain the most from court cases are lawyers. (Did I just say that? )

Example: the bureaucrats who invent rules for the sake of rules and to justify their existence can easily be persuaded by a little graft/corruption to apply those rules in a way that is beneficial to those who would provide the graft. The rule of law would prevent this. So pass laws (not regulations) and enforce them.

Yes! But enforcement is the issue. In my view, at present the law in the UK is not enforced. Social Justice is about empowering individuals to enforce their legal rights irrespective of wealth, power and influence.

Welfare, no matter how benevolent it seems, has created a dependency society.

Welfare in the UK has created a dependency culture, there is no doubt about that. That said, whilst the government wants people out working they are doing nothing to create jobs on the domestic front. They can’t have it both ways - that is no jobs but no one claiming welfare. Social Justice is about creating employment opportunities on the domestic front and enabling individuals to access the workplace - not just giving them no money if through no fault of their own they are unemployed. Particularly if they have paid into the system Zolt which we do here.

 

[minkymurph]

My God, Lady…you would make a FANTASTIC lawyer.

Thanks Zolt. :bounce:

The fact that your government won’t allow you to be all that you can be… proves that you do not live in a free society. .

No it is not a free society - not by any stretch of the imagination. That said, the Law Society trains lawyers. Thus, should they not be able to decide how many lawyers they will train? The figure is determined on the amount of work available. It’s like teachers. Yes, you can train thousands of teachers but what if there are no jobs for them? There are only so many teachers needed on our small island.

In the U.S. thousands of people take the annual "Bar"Exams in each state. If you pass, you are then licensed to practice law in that state. Convicted felons have studied law while in prison and passed Bar Exams on their release and are working as lawyers. There is no educational requirement. Pass the exam…and poof…you are a lawyer. Of course those with a prestigious law school degree get offers from prestigious law firms to work for them. Others simply “hang out their shingle”.

This is a great case for a Free Market. With an abundance of lawyers…who benefits?..the consumer. Not everyone needs a $million a year law firm on retainer but they can use legal help and with more lawyers…things get competitive. Sure lawyers have standard fees…but I can assure you that many times these fees are waived or modified.

I see what you are saying, but everyone wants a competent lawyer. It is true those who are not will find it difficult to get clients and may go out of business, but they may leave a trail of destruction in their wake if the vetting process is limited. Would it not be better for the consumer to have a choice of competent lawyers to select from? I mean, you wouldn’t let just anyone operate on you. You would want them to have a certain level of expertise and not just a licence.

After learning about how your “Law Society” operates…I would suggest completely revising the entire system. Starting with the elimination of the Law Society.

I think they should just rub the entire UK out and draw it again - never mind the Law Society.

The Law Society do a lot more than train lawyers. They are the regulating body and an unregulated legal system to me would be disastrous. What I think is unfair is their selection process.

 

[exnihilo]

You are correct. Only the Law Society can determine how many lawyers to train each year. Someone needs to decide how many lawyers our society needs. We could train hundreds of lawyers but if they are not needed, is it a good idea to train hundreds of lawyers?

If the Law Society does not determine how many lawyers should be trained each year, who should? You are correct it is not free enterprise, but can it not be argued people in that profession are best placed to determine how many new lawyers each year are needed?

The study of economics has absolutely demonstrated the best way to allocate resources is the free market. This does not mean there will never be shortages or surpluses. It just means that compared to a command economy it is better. In a free market a surplus leads to lower prices which causes less of that good to be produced. In a free market a shortage leads to higher prices which causes more of that good to be produced. People, both consumers and producers, often don’t like this change in price. For this reason they will try to eliminate the free market. But if you want the most optimal allocation of resources the market is the best.

 

[minkymurph]

The study of economics has absolutely demonstrated the best way to allocate resources is the free market. This does not mean there will never be shortages or surpluses. It just means that compared to a command economy it is better. In a free market a surplus leads to lower prices which causes less of that good to be produced. In a free market a shortage leads to higher prices which causes more of that good to be produced. People, both consumers and producers, often don’t like this change in price. For this reason they will try to eliminate the free market. But if you want the most optimal allocation of resources the market is the best.

Sorry exnihilo but I don’t see how this remotely relates to the Law Societies selection process.

 

[freeRadical]

Sorry exnihilo but I don’t see how this remotely relates to the Law Societies selection process.

I believe they were responding to the statement you made about someone needing to decided how many lawyers there are each year, not the Law Societies selection process.