Capitalism and the rule of law

[freeRadical]

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.

You really expect me to take people like Rothbard seriously? Didn’t he say it should be a woman’s right to let her child starve to death in its crib if she wants too?

The fact of the matter is a lot of great economic thinkers and philosophers also supported some sort of basic welfare system…even many of the ones you posted. Capitalism and welfare are not mutually exclusive.

 

[freeRadical]

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.

Sorry it took me so long to respond to you.

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?

Why does someone need to determine the amount of lawyers there are? If you believe that someone needs to determine the amount of lawyers do you also believe that someone needs to determine the amount of farmers? Doctors? Engineers? Scientists? Mathematicians? Cashiers? Real estate agents? Baristas? Teachers? Librarians?

Does someone also need to decide how many goods and services are produced each year? How much food? Clothes? Houses? TVs? DVDs? Cars? Books?

Does someone need to determine how many businesses there are and what they produce each year?

History has shown us the folly of central planning.

The market will determine how many lawyers there are, as it always has. Those laws that everyone tries to escape but cannot, the Laws of Supply and Demand.

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.

There will never be a “disproportionate” number of lawyers. The market twill always bring itself into equilibrium unless there is a market failure. It just so happens that the lawyer market in the UK is being distorted right now, by the Law Society. There is a market failure, a monopoly. Get rid of the monopoly and the market will correct itself. The problem right now is that there is a shortage of lawyers, not a surplus. The UK needs more lawyers but the Law Society will never let that happen because it hurts the “price” of lawyers. The same thing is happening right now in the US with regards to doctors.

Your solution, a quota system, will not make things any better and I doubt you will benefit from it. As I said before, it will just be hijacked by special interests as things of this nature always are. The best solution is to get rid of what is distorting the market, the monopoly power of the Law 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 agree. What I don’t agree with is trying to legislate this into existence.

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.

Oh, you’re a trade unionist. We are definitely not going to get along then.

 

[Rau]

…Why does someone need to determine the amount of lawyers there are? If you believe that someone needs to determine the amount of lawyers do you also believe that someone needs to determine the amount of farmers? Doctors? Engineers? Scientists? Mathematicians? Cashiers? Real estate agents? Baristas? Teachers? Librarians?

Doctors and Lawyers (at least in a number of jurisdictions) are subject to this kind of control. You can take a couple of perspectives on the process:

1. The last phase of training of these professions is delivered via professional bodies / practicing professionals, as opposed to the mainstream educational entities (universities); The training calls on the time of senior practicing professionals, and thus is subject to the capacity and willingness of those professionals to take on “apprentices”; Gaining a “place” is somewhat akin to securing a job - you won’t get one unless someone wants to hire you.
2. The professional bodies have a self-interest in ensuring the supply of professionals is always “tight” - ie. by constraining the number of new entrants. This maximises the income potential of those already in the profession.

Clearly there is scope for inappropriate outcomes, but unless the training process is radically changed, those doing the training have to have a say in how much training occurs.

By the way, a not dissimilar problem occurs with the training of tradesmen and builders (perhaps in the US you call them “contractors”?). This generally requires an apprenticeship, and/or a combination of formal training together with some quantity of practical experience. It is not unusual to hear of people who have done the formal training component but have not secured the practical experience - because no one wants to provide the appropriate employment experience/job. This is not that dissimilar to Minky’s experience, though I’d suggest less prone to Issue (2) above due to the breadth and scale of the building industry.

 

[minkymurph]

Doctors and Lawyers (at least in a number of jurisdictions) are subject to this kind of control. You can take a couple of perspectives on the process:

1. The last phase of training of these professions is delivered via professional bodies / practicing professionals, as opposed to the mainstream educational entities (universities); The training calls on the time of senior practicing professionals, and thus is subject to the capacity and willingness of those professionals to take on “apprentices”; Gaining a “place” is somewhat akin to securing a job - you won’t get one unless someone wants to hire you.
2. The professional bodies have a self-interest in ensuring the supply of professionals is always “tight” - ie. by constraining the number of new entrants. This maximises the income potential of those already in the profession.

Clearly there is scope for inappropriate outcomes, but unless the training process is radically changed, those doing the training have to have a say in how much training occurs.

By the way, a not dissimilar problem occurs with the training of tradesmen and builders (perhaps in the US you call them “contractors”?). This generally requires an apprenticeship, and/or a combination of formal training together with some quantity of practical experience. It is not unusual to hear of people who have done the formal training component but have not secured the practical experience - because no one wants to provide the appropriate employment experience/job. This is not that dissimilar to Minky’s experience, though I’d suggest less prone to Issue (2) above due to the breadth and scale of the building industry.

Yep - that’s how it works Rau. Thanks for explaining that now I don’t have to.

 

[minkymurph]

Why does someone need to determine the amount of lawyers there are? If you believe that someone needs to determine the amount of lawyers do you also believe that someone needs to determine the amount of farmers? Doctors? Engineers? Scientists? Mathematicians? Cashiers? Real estate agents? Baristas? Teachers? Librarians?

Does someone also need to decide how many goods and services are produced each year? How much food? Clothes? Houses? TVs? DVDs? Cars? Books?
Does someone need to determine how many businesses there are and what they produce each year?

History has shown us the folly of central planning.

Let me be clear on this, this is not an argument for central planning.

The things you list are all determined by someone, or a group.

The number of university places is determined by universities. Thus, the universities decide how many people can take a law degree, medical degree, teaching, engineering etc. In the UK, all university courses are oversubscribed. Significantly so in the last 5 years as more young people are entering and staying in full-time education because they can’t get jobs.

Farmers determine what crops they will and how much, the clothing industry decides what clothes to make and how much, and many employees/managers etc. they need - same for the other products you mention.

The market will determine how many lawyers there are, as it always has. Those laws that everyone tries to escape but cannot, the Laws of Supply and Demand.

The market may determine needs, but it is manged by people. The ‘market’ is not an individual and doesn’t make decisions,

 

[minkymurph]

There will never be a “disproportionate” number of lawyers. The market twill always bring itself into equilibrium unless there is a market failure. It just so happens that the lawyer market in the UK is being distorted right now, by the Law Society. There is a market failure, a monopoly. Get rid of the monopoly and the market will correct itself. The problem right now is that there is a shortage of lawyers, not a surplus. The UK needs more lawyers but the Law Society will never let that happen because it hurts the “price” of lawyers. The same thing is happening right now in the US with regards to doctors.

I agree with you on monopolies, but I don’t understand why you think there is a shortage of lawyers in the UK, if that is in fact what you are saying.

There are two major factors in N Ireland as to why the number of barristers required is less than in previous years. First, the conflict has ended and second, austerity as legal aid has been drastically reduced.

Your solution, a quota system, will not make things any better and I doubt you will benefit from it. As I said before, it will just be hijacked by special interests as things of this nature always are. The best solution is to get rid of what is distorting the market, the monopoly power of the Law Society.

Would getting rid of a professional body by force not be an act of dictatorship? And what of separation of powers?

I agree. What I don’t agree with is trying to legislate this into existence.

It would be nice if legislating it into existence wasn’t needed, but I would argue that in the absence of legislation it would never happen.

Oh, you’re a trade unionist. We are definitely not going to get along then.

I am your friend and nemesis.

 

[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.

Apologies for my response to this post Rau - I misread it. Sorry. :flowers:

 

[Rau]

Apologies for my response to this post Rau - I misread it. Sorry. :flowers:

No worries. I was perplexed!