Well, how about that? In an interview for Britain’s Daily Telegraph on a lot of other subjects, Antonin Scalia offered, perhaps without invitation, his opinion on the prominence of laws and (hence) lawyers in his country. It’s at the very end of this article, and he notes that law is the major seemingly chosen in college by all of America’s best and brightest.
A parallel that comes to my mind concerns Argentina, not exactly everyone’s first choice for a progressive, prosperous country among those making up the world late in the last century. There, at least since the Fifties, and continuing, if not to today, then at least through the Eighties, EVERYONE majored in law. Anything else respectable (doctor? engineer?) evidently involved too much work, or work that was too difficult.
Parallels between Argentina and the US are numerous to my eyes. I hope they become less so, one way or the other (maybe Argentina will change).
{ 11 comments }
Too many laws and lawyers: What would you expect? The Federal Government Budget is 3 x 10^12. Why be a doctor or a businessman making less than 10^6 dollars when you can control 10^12 dollars with 435 reps + 100 senators + 1 president + 9 justices = 546 people.. Now go to the states where the same holds true. Why be a doctor or dentist or other professional when you can tell them what to do with agreement of 545 other folks. Why go into business when you and 545 other folks can determine which ones succeed and who gets the money.
The other part was Strict Constitutionalist:
He and 4 others picked the president. There is no real specific stuff in the constitution on resolving disputes for the election or president. Other than if no person has a majority of electorial votes then the House of Representatives shall pick the president. But we have those annoying ammendments restricting the Congress from grabbing rights and powers not enumerated in the constitution: The 9th and 10th Ammendments specifically.
So if Florida could not determine who gets their electorial votes then the Congress would pick the president. Who determines where those electorial votes go? That is UP TO FLORIDA!!!!!f It isn’t up to Congress or the Supreme Court or the President or the FEC or anybody in Washington!!!!
“If you look at the figures, where does the top of the class in college go to? It goes into law. They don’t go into teaching. Now I love the law, there is nothing I would rather do but it doesn’t produce anything.”
WOW. This actually gives me hope. Scalia actually seems to be smart but not a scumbag politician. how is it possible for him to be in such a high position?
“If you look at the figures, where does the top of the class in college go to? It goes into law. They don’t go into teaching. Now I love the law, there is nothing I would rather do but it doesn’t produce anything.”
WOW. This actually gives me hope. Scalia actually seems to be smart but not a scumbag politician. how is it possible for him to be in such a high position?
Oh no, please. I wish my country Argentina were a little bit like America!! Don’t tell you are converting to the statistland of the south!!
This is country is SO overlawed that has over 20 thousands laws and counting. Here people love making law and more law trought the years. Is the national sport! If there is a problem…well make a law!
The problem is that bussiness man here have to be a very nice friend of the state to make progress and money. So they tend to choose another careers…
And we used to be a country of freedom in all sense!
Every time I get out of a meeting with a tax attorney, I feel a small pang of regret. Every tax attorney I have met has been a really smart fellow or gal. Bursting with intelligence and competence, their energies are channeled to essentially magnifying the overall crippling effect of taxes while trying to reduce the impact to their clients in particular instances. A shame.
The only sight more horrible than a smart fellow wasting away in tax law is the sight of one working the IP salt mines. Now that’s a waste of a life!
Too many laws? How about law that directly coerce behavior contrary to what is required for survival (of all except those who make/profit from the law)? The most relevant comment is that the law does not produce anything, but costs a very large percentage of social resources. Every lawyer requires another lawyer to counterbalance, producing nothing but meanlingless paper.
Here’s what this means economically (Mathematics of Rule):
http://www.nazisociopaths.org/modules/article/view.article.php/c1/32
And here’s what this means to the (non)survival of civilization:
http://www.nazisociopaths.org/modules/article/view.article.php/36
Bill Ross
(Electronics Design Engineer)
Here’s the chance to create or re-brand words! What should we call a collection of lawyers?
My own suggestion, from camp-follower, is a Camp of Lawyers.
Any better idea?
FWIW, I think the proper term is a “huddle”
Lawyers are not the problem; their numbers are in part (and not wholly) merely a symptom of the growth of the state.
Lawyers are, first, the evidence of an open society. Despots and bureaucratically administered states have little need for lawyers, though of course they may use them to jigger the rules further in their favor.
Second, even a stateless but modern world would have LOTS of rules, and corresponding needs for lawyers, or lawyer-like people.
Both aspects can be seen in place like Japan, where an undergraduate law degree in either law or economics is the norm, but there are very few licensed lawyers – but large in-house law departments filled with law graduates. But the caps on lawyers has left a comparatively underdeveloped judicial dispute resolution system, and essentially leaves citizens and industry in the sway of powerful discretionary regulators. In the US, people will directly sue corporations for injuries, organize consumer action etc. In Japan, everyone assumes that if there is a problem in consumer services, it’s one that requires government intervention to solve, and considers the existence of such problems as reasons to be dissatisfied with the politicians and bureaucrats.
TT
TT,
I think you got it wrong. how many lawyers do you think are in Somalia? a large amount of lawyers, i would argue, are the result of a bureaucratic state–people needing someone smart enough and trained to figure out the numerous laws so that they can stay out of jail. think about this; how many lawyers would become unemployed if the income tax went away in its entirety? i’d venture to say 10s of thousands.
It is wrong to lump lawyers into one huge pile of blood thirsty hounds, hell-bent on manipulating the world to their or their client’s advantage, while filling their pockets with fame and fortune.
The fact is that in 2005 the average wage for a wage level 10 lawyer was less than $32 an hour, level 15 was less than $43 an hour and level 7 was less than $25 an hour (source: BLS). Certainly not strike it rich earnings by an means. The fact is that most lawyers do not get rich, are not rich and will never be rich. But they share a love for the law, of which without we would be in a world of hurt.
Like everything else though, America has so fantasized the entire law industry that the average person on the street thinks conflict is resolved in 60 minutes by gorgeous models and a no wait trial system. Sorry, but CSI, Law and Order and Boston Legal are about as far from reality as one can imagine, yet the average person takes it to heart. So there is a false perception of lawyers getting rich and getting the girl that distorts the picture, which leads to an inaccurate view of the real law industry.
America has too many laws in print only. The fact is that most laws are never even utilized or enforced, especially when it comes to criminal law. They get outdated and loose their ability to be properly applied to current life. Tax law in contrast, is a whole different game. Tax law is not about the law, justice, equality or protection. It is about driving government revenue. It goes beyond law and order and enters the realm of thievery and servitude. The tax system is less a collection of laws and more a collection of presidential orders, of which there is very little to no room for resistance. Tax law is a different animal that should truly be viewed outside of mainstream law.
I would argue that the United States does not have too many lawyers. Rather is has too many lawyers concentrated in too few disciplines. I would also argue that the United States is not over-lawed, but rather it has too many laws concentrated into too few areas. And that lawyers, like any group of ambitious professionals, will tend to go were the money is. Whereas, the money is going to most certainly be in criminal law (defense: keep me out of prison), tax law (save me money) and civil law / contract law (plaintiff side: make me money). In addition, the more complex a segment of the law gets, the more lawyers are needed to walk clients through it, and thus the more complex it then becomes. It is a vicious self-serving cycle.
If the United States truly wants to reduce the number of laws and lawyers, it has to reduce the monetary gain that 3 of the 4 players (plaintiff’s lawyer, defense lawyer and plaintiff) get out of the legal process. It has to become more costly to sue, more costly to loose and more costly to practice. Moreover, the entire practice of charging no fees unless money is obtained should be “against the lawâ€. Some lawyers ultimately become nothing more than hedge players, practicing in the field of law. Bad apples in an otherwise helpful bunch.
Comments on this entry are closed.