Universal Legal Representation

[Idolater]

We provide legal representation (subsidy) to those accused of a crime, if you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided to you.

Education is also subsidized. You can opt if you can afford it, for your own education, but there's always the default government option available.

There are very many other government services (subsidies).

Government services like police and fire, education, healthcare insurance, infrastructure, are all a little fraught, just the nature of the beast which is government. Bureaucracy, gigantic organizations, like OSHA and the EPA and FDA etc. The regime itself is bloated with redundancy and waste, we all know this, we accept it, even if we dislike it, we also know it's a tough nut to crack.

There are certain activities that if government does not do it, will not get done, under the current picture or paradigm.

People with legal representation all other things being equal, are better off than people without an attorney. And we are a nation of laws.

Classical economists and modern anarcho-libertarians always wanted to believe that if we have something like a "night watchman" type minimalist government, and let unencumbered economic forces prevail, that all of our collective problems would, due to a mythical "invisible hand", resolve eventually. Most people acknowledge that these same naked economic forces also tend to promote certain activities that are not good for people, such as drug use, prostitution and pornography.

We should all have access to a default government option legal representation.

The basic idea is that with individual legal representation, we will be able to achieve what enormous government services struggle to provide. The "big business" approach is too broad and too general, and besides this enables those currently with legal representation to game or otherwise subvert the system.

Through more refined legal attention to detail all individuals will be able to achieve higher quality justice.

 

[Right Divider]

The regime itself is bloated with redundancy and waste, we all know this, we accept it, even if we dislike it, we also know it's a tough nut to crack.

Speak for yourself. I do NOT accept it.

 

[Gary K]

Yeah, the US is so "wealthy" we can easily afford even more expensive legal representation. It's not like we aren't very close to defaulting on our debt and have skyrocketing inflation so we need to borrow even more money. Since 2020 we've only printed 6 trillion dollars so what's the big deal besides inflation? It's "transitory".

 

[Idolater]

Speak for yourself. I do NOT accept it.

All I'm saying is that we accept that it is the case. If you don't accept it, in this sense, then you don't accept reality.

 

[Idolater]

Yeah, the US is so "wealthy" we can easily afford even more expensive legal representation. It's not like we aren't very close to defaulting on our debt and have skyrocketing inflation so we need to borrow even more money. Since 2020 we've only printed 6 trillion dollars so what's the big deal besides inflation? It's "transitory".

Our national net worth is ca. 150 trillion USD last time I checked.

 

[Right Divider]

All I'm saying is that we accept that it is the case.

There is a huge difference between accepting it and living with it.

If you don't accept it, in this sense, then you don't accept reality.

Thanks Mr. Reality.

 

[ok doser]

All I'm saying is that we accept that it is the case. If you don't accept it, in this sense, then you don't accept reality.

Reality is for people who can't handle their drugs

 

[Gary K]

Our national net worth is ca. 150 trillion USD last time I checked.

Speaking of reality, our debt, excluding derivatives which are estimated to be in the quadrillions because nobody really knows how much has been repackaged and sold over and over again is 200 trillion including unfunded liabilities. That's money Congress has spent without considering how they will pay for it. That means even if we sold everything in the US we wouldn't even scratch the surface of our debt.

 

[Idolater]

Reality is for people who can't handle their drugs

Yeah I'm beginning to come around to your way of thinking here.

 

[Idolater]

Speaking of reality, our debt, excluding derivatives which are estimated to be in the quadrillions because nobody really knows how much has been repackaged and sold over and over again is 200 trillion including unfunded liabilities. That's money Congress has spent without considering how they will pay for it.

Federal expenditure is like five trillion USD, that's 40 years of spending? And that's all with zero revenue to offset it? To come up with the 200 trillion USD figure? "That's [200 trillion USD] money Congress has spent"-you

That means even if we sold everything in the US we wouldn't even scratch the surface of our debt.

Oh I forgot to include public property. That was just household wealth, the 150 trillion USD figure.

 

[Idolater]

The Fed - Distribution: Distribution of Household Wealth in the U.S. since 1989

The Federal Reserve Board of Governors in Washington DC.

www.federalreserve.gov

 

[Gary K]

Federal expenditure is like five trillion USD, that's 40 years of spending? And that's all with zero revenue to offset it? To come up with the 200 trillion USD figure? "That's [200 trillion USD] money Congress has spent"-you

Oh I forgot to include public property. That was just household wealth, the 150 trillion USD figure.

You're a financial idiot. Go look up what unfunded liabilities are. Then go look up what derivatives are, You also can't add or subtract. A trillion is 1 followed by 12 zeroes. A quadrillion is 1 followed by 15 zeroes. It's a 1000 times larger than a trillion.

What an idiotic troll. You can't even begin to make sense.

 

[Idolater]

You're a financial idiot. Go look up what unfunded liabilities are. Then go look up what derivatives are, You also can't add or subtract. A trillion is 1 followed by 12 zeroes. A quadrillion is 1 followed by 15 zeroes. It's a 1000 times larger than a trillion.

What an idiotic troll. You can't even begin to make sense.

Sigh.

 

[Gary K]

Sigh.

Oh yeah. Oh poor Idolater. He thinks he can educate another person on economics when he doesn't even understand the difference between a trillion and a quadrillion because he doesn't know the meaning of quadrillion. How is it you think you can instruct someone else when your ignorance is so deep you can't understand even basic terminology and are too lazy to go look up the meaning of a word you don't understand? You're not alone. UN is just as ignorant and just as lazy.

Look to learn instrad of thinking you know it all after reading an article or two. I was just about as ignorant as you are now 20 years ago. I started studying because I knew my own ignorance. I studied hard for a decade and I still listen to those honest economists and financial analysts so I can increase my understanding and knowledge. Know your limitations. It's the beginning of wisdom.

 

[TomO]

We provide legal representation (subsidy) to those accused of a crime, if you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided to you.

The result of which is millions of people with over-worked sub-standard lawyers and a brutally un-just Plea-Bargain Mill.

The basic idea is that with individual legal representation, we will be able to achieve what enormous government services struggle to provide. The "big business" approach is too broad and too general, and besides this enables those currently with legal representation to game or otherwise subvert the system.

What are you talking about? That in itself would be an enormous government service.
If you have a case now you can get a lawyer...If they smell pay-out they are there and working. Is it still unequitable? Yeop!...But it's better than what you are proposing.

Through more refined legal attention to detail all individuals will be able to achieve higher quality justice.

Plea-Bargain Mills dude...

 

[JudgeRightly]

We provide legal representation (subsidy) to those accused of a crime, if you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided to you.

Any system that requires the use of lawyers to make sense of the law is inherently unjust, because it means that the law is being used as a weapon against the innocent.

Education is also subsidized. You can opt if you can afford it, for your own education, but there's always the default government option available.

The government has no right to educate children, nor to provide a means for families to send their children off to government funded schools, and if you don't educate them according to government standards, then you get in trouble. Talk about racketeering...

There are very many other government services (subsidies).

The only two responsibilities a government has are criminal justice and infrastructure.

Doing anything beyond those two roles means the government cannot do those two things as efficiently.

Government services like police and fire,

Are part of criminal justice and infrastructure, which includes emergency services.

education, healthcare insurance,

Are socialist programs.

infrastructure,

Supra.

are all a little fraught, just the nature of the beast which is government.

Not the ones specified above as the sole responsibilities of government.

Bureaucracy, gigantic organizations, like OSHA and the EPA and FDA etc. The regime itself is bloated with redundancy and waste, we all know this,

It became that way because of the abandonment of biblical principles of government.

we accept it,

No, WE don't. You might, but I do not.

even if we dislike it, we also know it's a tough nut to crack.

It really isn't that difficult to understand.

Achieving the ideal, however, is currently, outside of external intervention or a change of heart by all involved in the government, impossible.

There are certain activities that if government does not do it, will not get done, under the current picture or paradigm.

Those are completely unnecessary, that if the government DOES do it, only harm the people.

People with legal representation all other things being equal, are better off than people without an attorney. And we are a nation of laws.

If we as a nation were to simplify the law, no one would need a lawyer, crime would be reduced, and the nation as a whole could run more efficiently.

Classical economists and modern anarcho-libertarians always wanted to believe that if we have something like a "night watchman" type minimalist government, and let unencumbered economic forces prevail, that all of our collective problems would, due to a mythical "invisible hand", resolve eventually.

The smaller a government is, the more efficiently it will run.

The less influence it has over an economy, the more the people will prosper.

Anarchy is just as wrong as too much government, if not worse.

As for money, it's unbiased, and thus can be used as a guage for what is valuable.

Most people acknowledge that these same naked economic forces also tend to promote certain activities that are not good for people, such as drug use, prostitution and pornography.

Drug use, prostitution, and pornography should be illegal, and the government should enforce laws against them. Such enforcement falls under criminal justice.

We should all have access to a default government option legal representation.

Wrong.

No one should have to have a lawyer in order to understand the law.

Also, by defending a wrongdoer, a person becomes an accomplice after the fact, and should thus be punished in the same way.

The basic idea is that with individual legal representation, we will be able to achieve what enormous government services struggle to provide.

And how do you suppose the government funds such a thing?

Answer: Through taxation.

In other words, you're trying to lessen the burden on the people by adding to their burden.

Meanwhile, the solution is to lessen taxes, simplify the law, and get rid of lawyers entirely (along with juries, plea-bargains, and prisons, and all that is associated with those things).

The "big business" approach is too broad and too general, and besides this enables those currently with legal representation to game or otherwise subvert the system.

Big business approach? What in the world are you talking about? Did I miss something?

Through more refined legal attention to detail

By getting rid of the things I specified above, the government can act more efficiently. And when the government can act more efficiently, more focus can be put on criminal justice. When that happens, crimes that would, under the current circumstances, be unsolvable due to lack of manpower/resources can be solved. And by punishing criminals appropriately, you deter (or prevent, in the case of the death penalty) them from committing more crimes. This lessens the burden on the government even further, which allows it to devote more resources to lesser crimes, and regain control of the nation.

all individuals will be able to achieve higher quality justice.

There aren't different levels of justice.

Justice is an absolute concept, something (in terms of legal/moral issues) is either just or unjust. There's no in-between.

 

[Gary K]

The result of which is millions of people with over-worked sub-standard lawyers and a brutally un-just Plea-Bargain Mill.



What are you talking about? That in itself would be an enormous government service.
If you have a case now you can get a lawyer...If they smell pay-out they are there and working. Is it still unequitable? Yeop!...But it's better than what you are proposing.



Plea-Bargain Mills dude...

The more the number of government handouts the greater the opportunities for fraud.

 

[Idolater]

The result of which is millions of people with over-worked sub-standard lawyers and a brutally un-just Plea-Bargain Mill.

Do you agree with:
"People with legal representation all other things being equal, are better off than people without an attorney."

What are you talking about? That in itself would be an enormous government service.

Idea is this one government service would right-size all the others. In time.

If you have a case now you can get a lawyer...If they smell pay-out they are there and working. Is it still unequitable?

I'm assuming you agree that we are a nation of laws.
Is it equitable if there are probably 50% of Americans at least who generally cannot afford to hire an attorney for most negotiations? If we are a nation of laws?

Yeop!...But it's better than what you are proposing.

Why?

Plea-Bargain Mills dude...

I'm much more envisioning average Americans being better defended in negotiations and civil disputes.

 

[Idolater]

Any system that requires the use of lawyers to make sense of the law is inherently unjust, because it means that the law is being used as a weapon against the innocent.



The government has no right to educate children, nor to provide a means for families to send their children off to government funded schools, and if you don't educate them according to government standards, then you get in trouble. Talk about racketeering...



The only two responsibilities a government has are criminal justice and infrastructure.

Doing anything beyond those two roles means the government cannot do those two things as efficiently.



Are part of criminal justice and infrastructure, which includes emergency services.



Are socialist programs.



Supra.



Not the ones specified above as the sole responsibilities of government.



It became that way because of the abandonment of biblical principles of government.



No, WE don't. You might, but I do not.



It really isn't that difficult to understand.

Achieving the ideal, however, is currently, outside of external intervention or a change of heart by all involved in the government, impossible.



Those are completely unnecessary, that if the government DOES do it, only harm the people.



If we as a nation were to simplify the law, no one would need a lawyer, crime would be reduced, and the nation as a whole could run more efficiently.



The smaller a government is, the more efficiently it will run.

The less influence it has over an economy, the more the people will prosper.

Anarchy is just as wrong as too much government, if not worse.

As for money, it's unbiased, and thus can be used as a guage for what is valuable.



Drug use, prostitution, and pornography should be illegal, and the government should enforce laws against them. Such enforcement falls under criminal justice.



Wrong.

No one should have to have a lawyer in order to understand the law.

Also, by defending a wrongdoer, a person becomes an accomplice after the fact, and should thus be punished in the same way.



And how do you suppose the government funds such a thing?

Answer: Through taxation.

In other words, you're trying to lessen the burden on the people by adding to their burden.

Meanwhile, the solution is to lessen taxes, simplify the law, and get rid of lawyers entirely (along with juries, plea-bargains, and prisons, and all that is associated with those things).



Big business approach? What in the world are you talking about? Did I miss something?



By getting rid of the things I specified above, the government can act more efficiently. And when the government can act more efficiently, more focus can be put on criminal justice. When that happens, crimes that would, under the current circumstances, be unsolvable due to lack of manpower/resources can be solved. And by punishing criminals appropriately, you deter (or prevent, in the case of the death penalty) them from committing more crimes. This lessens the burden on the government even further, which allows it to devote more resources to lesser crimes, and regain control of the nation.



There aren't different levels of justice.

Justice is an absolute concept, something (in terms of legal/moral issues) is either just or unjust. There's no in-between.

Our political ideologies are very very different. While we both agree that government is good (neither of us are anarchists), I am much more of a republican (a "whig") and you're an absolute monarchist. I say absolute because I've examined the constitutional monarchism you advocate here, and I don't see any protection against a rogue monarch in that proposal. I believe @Clete saw the same problem, but idk if he still agrees with that critique.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Our political ideologies are very very different. While we both agree that government is good (neither of us are anarchists), I am much more of a republican (a "whig")

I seem to recall Jesus being not too happy with the publicans...

And you claim to be a RE-publican.

and you're an absolute monarchist. I say absolute because I've examined the constitutional monarchism you advocate here, and I don't see any protection against a rogue monarch in that proposal. I believe @Clete saw the same problem, but idk if he still agrees with that critique.

I'm not sure how that's at all relevant to what I said, or this thread, for that matter. Irrelevant to who leads a nation, if it's laws are unjust, and/or if its legal system is inherently flawed, the people will suffer.