I don't remember any either. Not sure if there would ever be a need in a real Gulch. Seems to me we would not need so many lawyers if we did not have so many over complicated laws. I would expect laws in the Gulch to be simple to follow.
Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and George Washington were all lawyers. Judges are lawyers with rare exception. I am sure we would have no use for the founding fathers in the Gulch.
How can you say their study of the law did not have an impact. Jefferson wrote our founding document using the knowledge and skills he acquired in part from that study. They chose their field I assume with some care. They certainly come off in the history books as deliberate individuals. Is Ben Franklin any MORE important to our founding because he was not a lawyer?
Not what I said. What I said, was that their major contribution wasn't in the field of law. Adams, perhaps, but not Jeff/Wash.
I think that the study of most professions adds skills that individuals can leverage in many areas. I suspect that if Franklin had been pressed, he could have stood up to the best of them in a courtroom of the day. Not sure that the same could be said for Jeff/Wash/Adams in a science lab.
Their professions don't make them any more or less "important" to the founding. They each brought things that were needed. Paine a brilliant conveyor of ideas, Franklin a savvy and tough negotiator, Washington a stalwart commander, Jefferson a skilled integrator and synthesizer, the list goes on. Adams is the only one who stands out in my mind as notable for his legal background specifically - and for the courage to defend British soldiers because it was the moral thing to do.
You 're so much more than a professor. I 'm not sure why the study of law is taking such a bad wrap the last day in here. All lawyers are not ambulance chasers. All bankers are not corrupt either. Will we have a banking system in the gulch? Understanding the law can be a worthy effort it 's how documents like the Constitution came to be so well written. Madison, a lawyer who chose not to practice law, wrote the majority of the amendments in the Bill of Rights.
It's a good point. Personally I have a hard time with the Accounting profession. There are producers in every field. Maybe in a gulch our experiences would be so positive, it might change our thinking completely on what these professionals can offer of value.
One more point that I left out in my earlier reply that is likely germaine as well.
People are fed up with government and "agencies" both so lets look around.
President - lawyer First lady - lawyer Supreme court - all lawyers Senate - majority lawyers House - 435 lots of lawyers DOJ - lots and lots of lawyers Many cabinet appointees are lawyers
Is it any wonder people arent happy with them? Congress collectively has a public approval rating im the single digits and has been that way since the turn of the millenium
Why are so many of these positions filled with lawyers? I have a couple of theories.
1) The law is about control. It attracts those who like to control. Politics is about control. 2) It takes a lot of money and time to run for office. Many lawyers are parts of partnerships and have high margins. The partnership can afford to have one partner not servicing clients for the time it takes to run for office (incidentally, the same goes for doctors), and their clients are often serviced for the most part by clerks and paralegals in any case. Most "normal" workers, particularly blue collar, cannot afford to take off the time it takes to run for office.
I agree. It would be nice to see more business people in Congress. Rand Paul is a surgeon. Often lawyers are interested in governing. A Supreme needs to be an expert in law. We historically have had some justices who were not lawyers. One of my favorite characters in literature is a lawyer, Atticus Finch.
Atticus was a just man, who happened to practice law. He didn't need to practice "law" to defend Tom Robinson, he practiced honesty. Even so, he lost - a moral lesson that even the good on a righteous quest, can lose to evil.
Most of my favorite characters in literature are engineers. I think my favorite lawyer in literature is James J. Garsh from "Citizen of the Galaxy". (My favorite tv lawyer is Samuel T. Cogley, who defends Captain Kirk at his court martial... followed by ADA Benjamin Stone in the original "Law and Order"). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5ag8pwI...
We have 9 SCOTUS justices who don't seem to grasp the Constitution, and an occupant of the White House who's allegedly a professor of Constitutional Law who seems clueless as to what is actually IN the document.
Why do you assume that this post was meant to "give a bad rap" to lawyers? I asked a question, that was all. I was interested in where AR might position lawyers amongst the other professions clearly delineated as shruggers in the Gulch.
I was referring to my post yesterday. Several comments were made which I can certainly understand. I just wanted to point out on your post many admirable people were and are lawyers and therefore worthy of the Gulch.
Just so I understand, is "admirable" the standard for admittance, in your view?
Don't know how I think about that - I'd need to give it some thought. I can't think of anyone whom I admire that I wouldn't want to invite. I can think of a few whom I would, but don't necessarily admire. Hmmm, deserves more thought.
Well Objectivism defines the Oath. I am frustrated that you are highly critical of Objectivism without looking a little more into it. But if I agreed to be in or start a gulch, I wouldn't just ask card carrying Objectivists. Galt asked producers to leave, I don't think he had some petty checklist. Producers stand out. They live the Oath...whether they understood it or not.
I do live the oath, using my definitions. So long as Objectivism advocates insist on atheism, I'm not interested. I am highly interested in Christian Egoism.
Why would you say that I'm "highly critical" of Objectivism? I find most of it perfectly acceptable. What I find problematic is the fundamental premise that owning oneself is self-evident. To me that has been shown to be untrue by historical evidence. I can no more reconcile that than you can reconcile that I believe that the same was bestowed on humanity by God. In fact, my derivation makes more sense, as God gave humans free-will, so some of them choose to use force to oppress their fellow man despite the fact that God gave each of us freedom. The "self-evident" theory would say that freedom should be the norm not the anomaly. I see Objectivism as being Pollyannaish regarding human nature, whereas theist teachings are more pragmatic regarding human failings.
I think that I've said this before, but for the starting point, my moral philosophy and Objectivism are pretty much congruent.
Respectfully Robbie, A is A...not Robbie's A or my A...just A is A. There isn't an a la carte interpretation of Galt's oath where you can choose your 'definitions' off the shelf.
Rand chose the wording of Galt's oath because of the significant fundamental ideas it encompasses.
I am partly to blame for giving lawyers a bad rap in here. I like patent lawyers and real estate lawyers. Engineers and doctors have had an animosity toward lawyers for plenty of good reasons over the years.
As for the bankers, there certainly are some good bankers, too. John Allison comes to mind. With banking, however, the entire system is based on a deception and is a well-entrenched system to reward spending and punish saving. It is designed to punish people who "play by the rules".
I would say that the law is also based on a similar system. The lawyers in legislatures and bureaucracies continue to add more laws and regulations. There is no way that the average person can know or comprehend all of these laws, so they require the assistance of "experts," lawyers and paralegals, to study and interpret those laws - and even they get it wrong a lot of the time. It's a self-perpetuating situation.
It's not a small cartel, but you are correct, Robbie, in pointing out how the government lawyers and the non-government lawyers have conspired to form a self-perpetuating crony situation.
Again, we are focusing on procedural problems, which need to be fixed. We can see many of the founding fathers were lawyers. Hoover and Carter were engineers and terrible Presidents. Both Bushes had business degrees. Individuals, including lawyers, want to fundamentally reform an over -burdensome regulatory welfare state. The judge in the Gulch was a lawyer. The first president of the United States studied law but lead us to our founding as a brilliant military leader.
Well, truth be told, Washington wasn't a "brilliant military leader." He was a fair tactician and strategist, but was able to hold both soldier and legislator together under seemingly insurmountable odds. A little luck (or was that divine providence?) didn't hurt, either.
good point. I'm no expert on military leadership, but I think the "insurmountable odds" part as a leader in the military and a fledgling country, indicates some brilliance.
His genius, if you will, was in getting people to believe in him and in the cause. The Continental Army lost most every battle, but got very lucky in the few critical ones that really mattered - plus an enemy that relied too heavily on conscripts and mercenaries, not fighting for a cause.
One of the true "innovations" during the Revolution was not even a Washington or von Steuben developed tactic. It was those pesky colonist farmers (militia) who thought it better to hide behind trees and fire at the red coats (very easy to pick out, what with their red coats). The tactics of the day were to line up in a skirmish line 3 deep, the first course firing, the second aiming, and the 3rd reloading. The Brits complained about the colonists "not fighting fair" by hiding behind trees. I see this innovation in warfare tactics similar to the asymmetric warfare happening today. As I type this, I just got a notice that a 2 star gen was killed inside the Afghan military academy compound. That, too, is "not fair" but is something that we have to adapt to or lose.
Actually, Hoover was only "terrible" because he had been left an economy verging on popping the largest "bubble" in history - by Calvin Coolidge - you guessed it, a lawyer.
Hoover dealt with the economic collapse poorly, no doubt, but wasn't the cause.
I'll give you Carter - but then just look at his schooling and that will tell a lot ;-)
True. Reagan had the benefit of a demographic that was approaching peak spending. Largest boom in population growth (ever, I believe) reaching their peak spending period (46.5 yrs after birth - so that started in 1991 for the boomers born in 1945). Ten years earlier, they would have been in their mid-30's. Think about your own spending pattern, that's when many start increasing their incomes and buying more stuff, with it reaching a peak by 46.5.
Even Carter would have looked like a competent president had he been elected in 1992. You would have had to try very hard to screw up that economy.
Likewise, whomever is elected in 2016 will at best need to keep gov't out of the way so as not to further degrade the economy, but it won't likely rebound to any significant degree until the early '20's (children of the baby boomers).
Did you mean Clinton? peak spending is a useful tool, but many other factors are at play in wealth creation and a booming economy. Look at the interest rates when Reagan came in to office-I think they even nudged a little higher under him under he starting turning around the ship by slowing down the regulatory system, he cut marginal tax rates, strengthened the patent system., etc. Clinton first and foremost inherited a fundamentally sounder economy, and under Gingrich, they slowed the rate of spending.
"I am partly to blame for giving lawyers a bad rap in here" My impression is there is rent seeking in the legal industry. I think it's very ripe for disruption. The legal establishment won't like it, but eventually they won't be able to stop it.
Trouble is, they control the body of law/regulations and can change it seemingly faster than an external entity can react. Look at tax law, for instance. I don't know about you, but I'm still getting updates to my electronic tax prep software well into March.
Thus is why we live in a republic. Thus is why I cite the Constitution and will have no truck with "precedence" or SCOTUS "interpretations" of the Constitution. --- "Cogley: "Books, young man, books. Thousands of them. If time wasn't so important, I'd show you something. My library. Thousands of books."
Captain James T. Kirk: "And what would be the point?"
Cogley: "This is where the law is. Not in that homogenized, pasteurized synthesizer. Do you want to know the law? The ancient concepts in their own language? Learn the intent of the men who wrote them, from Moses to the tribunal of Alpha III? Books."
Captain James T. Kirk: "You have to be either an obsessive crackpot who's escaped from his keeper, or Samuel T. Cogley, attorney at law."
Cogley: "You're right on both counts. Need a lawyer?"
I go back and forth on that. While I agree it would take care of alot of frivolous lawsuits I do think it is more important to change the laws regarding discovery. These procedural constructs put money in lawyers' pockets, tie up court systems and do nothing for the clients. Lots of time and money could be saved that way. As well, why is everything based on an hourly rate? People should be quoted a price for a product. Again, the court system is set up in such a way that 's difficult to do. db tries to always quote a flat fee or "to not exceed x." Sometimes things take more in depth analysis than the price agreed warrants, but people don 't enjoy feeling like they signed up to a money pit.
There are pros/cons for either option. Pay by the hour you can stop any time you don't feel you're getting value, on the con side the lawyer can drag things out easily - so you need to have trust in them. Flat fee is a guaranteed cost, but to cover the possible contingencies the fee might be quoted substantially higher than it would in reality be so as not to get hit by unforeseen issues.
My business usually quotes customers a daily rate and a flat fee plus % of confirmed savings. The clients almost always take the hourly fee as that is a cost that they can control.
Other than the judge, there were no lawyers to my knowledge in AS. However, in our Gulch, we would need lawyers for the following: 1) handling any dismissals from Gulch society; 2) real estate agreements; 3) perhaps patent enforcement (but I hope not); and 4) handling minor disagreements.
I think that the study of most professions adds skills that individuals can leverage in many areas. I suspect that if Franklin had been pressed, he could have stood up to the best of them in a courtroom of the day. Not sure that the same could be said for Jeff/Wash/Adams in a science lab.
Their professions don't make them any more or less "important" to the founding. They each brought things that were needed. Paine a brilliant conveyor of ideas, Franklin a savvy and tough negotiator, Washington a stalwart commander, Jefferson a skilled integrator and synthesizer, the list goes on. Adams is the only one who stands out in my mind as notable for his legal background specifically - and for the courage to defend British soldiers because it was the moral thing to do.
Negative. One of the things they had in common was that they were renaissance men. Adams was a farmer. Also a lawyer.
Over and above the portrayals in the movies, TV and books, the ambulance chaser ads. etc
People are fed up with government and "agencies" both so lets look around.
President - lawyer
First lady - lawyer
Supreme court - all lawyers
Senate - majority lawyers
House - 435 lots of lawyers
DOJ - lots and lots of lawyers
Many cabinet appointees are lawyers
Is it any wonder people arent happy with them? Congress collectively has a public approval rating im the single digits and has been that way since the turn of the millenium
1) The law is about control. It attracts those who like to control. Politics is about control.
2) It takes a lot of money and time to run for office. Many lawyers are parts of partnerships and have high margins. The partnership can afford to have one partner not servicing clients for the time it takes to run for office (incidentally, the same goes for doctors), and their clients are often serviced for the most part by clerks and paralegals in any case. Most "normal" workers, particularly blue collar, cannot afford to take off the time it takes to run for office.
I'd like to see more engineers in Congress.
Most of my favorite characters in literature are engineers.
I think my favorite lawyer in literature is James J. Garsh from "Citizen of the Galaxy". (My favorite tv lawyer is Samuel T. Cogley, who defends Captain Kirk at his court martial... followed by ADA Benjamin Stone in the original "Law and Order").
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5ag8pwI...
We have 9 SCOTUS justices who don't seem to grasp the Constitution, and an occupant of the White House who's allegedly a professor of Constitutional Law who seems clueless as to what is actually IN the document.
Don't know how I think about that - I'd need to give it some thought. I can't think of anyone whom I admire that I wouldn't want to invite. I can think of a few whom I would, but don't necessarily admire. Hmmm, deserves more thought.
the standard for admittance culminates in living the Oath.
Why would you say that I'm "highly critical" of Objectivism? I find most of it perfectly acceptable. What I find problematic is the fundamental premise that owning oneself is self-evident. To me that has been shown to be untrue by historical evidence. I can no more reconcile that than you can reconcile that I believe that the same was bestowed on humanity by God. In fact, my derivation makes more sense, as God gave humans free-will, so some of them choose to use force to oppress their fellow man despite the fact that God gave each of us freedom. The "self-evident" theory would say that freedom should be the norm not the anomaly. I see Objectivism as being Pollyannaish regarding human nature, whereas theist teachings are more pragmatic regarding human failings.
I think that I've said this before, but for the starting point, my moral philosophy and Objectivism are pretty much congruent.
Rand chose the wording of Galt's oath because of the significant fundamental ideas it encompasses.
As for the bankers, there certainly are some good bankers, too. John Allison comes to mind. With banking, however, the entire system is based on a deception and is a well-entrenched system to reward spending and punish saving. It is designed to punish people who "play by the rules".
One of the true "innovations" during the Revolution was not even a Washington or von Steuben developed tactic. It was those pesky colonist farmers (militia) who thought it better to hide behind trees and fire at the red coats (very easy to pick out, what with their red coats). The tactics of the day were to line up in a skirmish line 3 deep, the first course firing, the second aiming, and the 3rd reloading. The Brits complained about the colonists "not fighting fair" by hiding behind trees. I see this innovation in warfare tactics similar to the asymmetric warfare happening today. As I type this, I just got a notice that a 2 star gen was killed inside the Afghan military academy compound. That, too, is "not fair" but is something that we have to adapt to or lose.
Hoover dealt with the economic collapse poorly, no doubt, but wasn't the cause.
I'll give you Carter - but then just look at his schooling and that will tell a lot ;-)
Even Carter would have looked like a competent president had he been elected in 1992. You would have had to try very hard to screw up that economy.
Likewise, whomever is elected in 2016 will at best need to keep gov't out of the way so as not to further degrade the economy, but it won't likely rebound to any significant degree until the early '20's (children of the baby boomers).
My impression is there is rent seeking in the legal industry. I think it's very ripe for disruption. The legal establishment won't like it, but eventually they won't be able to stop it.
---
"Cogley: "Books, young man, books. Thousands of them. If time wasn't so important, I'd show you something. My library. Thousands of books."
Captain James T. Kirk: "And what would be the point?"
Cogley: "This is where the law is. Not in that homogenized, pasteurized synthesizer. Do you want to know the law? The ancient concepts in their own language? Learn the intent of the men who wrote them, from Moses to the tribunal of Alpha III? Books."
Captain James T. Kirk: "You have to be either an obsessive crackpot who's escaped from his keeper, or Samuel T. Cogley, attorney at law."
Cogley: "You're right on both counts. Need a lawyer?"
Captain James T. Kirk: "I'm afraid so. "
My business usually quotes customers a daily rate and a flat fee plus % of confirmed savings. The clients almost always take the hourly fee as that is a cost that they can control.