The free administration of justice was a principle of the common law, and it must necessarily be a part of every system of government which is not designed to be an engine in the hands of the rich for the oppression of the poor.
FULL ARTICLE by Lysander Spooner
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/11482/the-free-administration-of-justice/
The Free Administration of Justice
Previous post: Professor Cantor on iTunes U
Next post: The Myth that Is FDR
{ 5 comments }
There is another phenomenon which perhaps wasn’t as common in Spooner’s day, but which easily causes as much harm to the common good as those which he mentioned. When a member of the middle- to upper-class wields the legal system as a weapon with which to threaten a company or corporation, demanding a sum of money as ransom, the law aids and abets him in committing an act no less egregious and base than common burglary.
Because the executives entrusted with the administration of a corporation have a legal and moral responsibility to maximize their profit, the threat of excessive legal costs is a grave matter: one which they have a responsibility to mitigate if possible. Therefore, by threatening legal action against a company for some wrong (be it real, perceived, or imaginary), and then proffering the less expensive alternative of a “settlement,” a man or woman of the middle class may gain by treachery what to them is a substantial amount of wealth.
The monopoly legal profession (bar association members only) has endeavored to replace the common law with legislated rules and regulations to the detriment of justice. In addition to the valid points the great lawyer Lysander Spooner makes here, there is this: All of the criminal cases and many of the civil cases in federal courts will be captioned thus: United States versus John Doe, or perhaps ABC corporation versus the United States. So one of the parties, plaintiff or defendant, will be the federal government and the judge will be a federal judge. No bias? Humph! The reason the IRS can loudly proclaim that it wins nearly all of its cases against people who resist paying taxes on whatever grounds is because the judge who hears the case receives his or her large salary and other munificent emoluments from the very taxes the protesting taxpayer doesn’t feel legally obligated to have to pay. If enough tax resisters won their cases, federal judges would have to take a pay cut.
The issue of justice is too complex and important to accommodate simplistic treatments, which often ask for impractical or impossible feats as a solution to the compromises that any organized system of justice must make.
That said, I’m happy to say I agree with Spooner and found the article to be well written.
Ned Netterville wrote:
“The reason the IRS can loudly proclaim that it wins nearly all of its cases against people who resist paying taxes on whatever grounds is because the judge who hears the case receives his or her large salary and other munificent emoluments from the very taxes the protesting taxpayer doesn’t feel legally obligated to have to pay.”
I saw a video by Aaron Russo (I think) that had an interview with a former IRS official (I think). He mentioned a case in the Supreme Court where the court ruled against income taxes collection. The official was flabbergasted that somebody would suggest that the IRS not do its job because of some archaic court case. But this was the Supreme Court! This is how the law in this country is *supposed* to work! It was astounding to me that an official of this government didn’t even try to come up with some bullshit excuse for why this ruling didn’t apply to the IRS. He just waved it off with disdain. If government officials do this with the supreme law of the land, it’s no wonder the country is in the predicament it is in.
Ribald:
Yet another article about what government “should” and “ought” to be doing. Is this getting us anywhere?
Couldn’t we all just agree up front that governments should and ought to be righteous and just, then say “that said” and move on to more productive discussion? I mean, even if it isn’t all just preaching to the choir, even if articles like this actually enlighten someone as to what government ought to be doing, of what practical value would that be? Are we expecting maybe change we can believe in?
Comments on this entry are closed.