The American Constitution

[32BT]

Lawyers take cases with no cost to their clients by taking 1/3 of any monies they win in settlement or trial.  Happens all the time in injury cases.

Yes, I know that, and if you are detained you have the right to proper defense and all that crap. But what if you feel mistreated and think the law should protect you, but you have no moneys? What if you're evicted from your home? What if some faceless giant corp poisons your proverbial backyard ?

Rule of law!? Don't make me laugh...

[RSL]

Nonsense, we already had the following observation. Think about this: how is access to the legal system available in your country for the poor and needy? And don't give me that pro bono crap, you first need legal advice to even know whether the law can be of assistance and then you actually need to win the case to potentially have the cost returned.

That may be the case in the Netherlands, Oscar, but in the U.S. there are stables of public defenders provided by the state to defend against criminal charges, and there always are attorneys willing to take a case on contingency, provided the case makes sense.

[Alan Klein]

Yes, I know that, and if you are detained you have the right to proper defense and all that crap. But what if you feel mistreated and think the law should protect you, but you have no moneys? What if you're evicted from your home? What if some faceless giant corp poisons your proverbial backyard ?

Rule of law!? Don't make me laugh...

Well, it is true that nothing's perfect.  And sometimes, the legal system works against you.  But there are many avenues to get help in most cases.  There is Small Claims court for smaller disagreements.  There's renter's court.  You can;t be evicted from you home without a court decision.  So you can appear before a court to make your case known.  Judges usually protect tenants from unreasonable landlords.  There are also strong State and Federal regulations that protect the public from pollution.  You could use them to stop it.  If it already happened, you and your neighbors could find a law firm that will represent you for the 1/3 settlement.  Since 1/3 would be substantial, many firms would be interested in representing you.    Frankly, many of the infractions are caused by an over-zealous government implementing regulations that are too burdensome.  Now they're hard to sue.

[32BT]

That may be the case in the Netherlands, Oscar, but in the U.S. there are stables of public defenders provided by the state to defend against criminal charges, and there always are attorneys willing to take a case on contingency, provided the case makes sense.

See my previous remark. I don't mean the case where you've entered "the legal system" involuntarily. That's mostly covered.

In NL they try to overcome the barrier of (voluntary) entry by a free or very cheap legal desk where you can go for advice. But that still doesn't equalize the money balance when eventually having to face the deep pockets of a large, faceless corp with top lawyers on the payroll, or perhaps worse, the government itself.

[Alan Klein]

See my previous remark. I don't mean the case where you've entered "the legal system" involuntarily. That's mostly covered.

In NL they try to overcome the barrier of (voluntary) entry by a free or very cheap legal desk where you can go for advice. But that still doesn't equalize the money balance when eventually having to face the deep pockets of a large, faceless corp with top lawyers on the payroll, or perhaps worse, the government itself.

What do you suggest?

[RSL]

Yes, I know that, and if you are detained you have the right to proper defense and all that crap. But what if you feel mistreated and think the law should protect you, but you have no moneys? What if you're evicted from your home? What if some faceless giant corp poisons your proverbial backyard ?

Exactly the point, Oscar. If you're feeling "mistreated" you can go to an attorney and see if he (I know that's not politically correct) will take your case on contingency. First he's going to want to know WHY you were evicted, or HOW the "giant corp" poisoned your yard. That keeps a lot of crap from going to court. But in the end, if you have a valid case -- often even if you haven't -- you're gonna get representation.-

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

At this point, Oscar has gone off the deep end. Let him be.

[32BT]

for the 1/3 settlement.  Since 1/3 would be substantial, many firms would be interested in representing you.   

Settlements are also a good indication that the law is ruling nothing. If you think about it carefully, it's an exchange of money so the law doesn't have to rule and nothing has to change.

Reminder: this is the original assessment that I'm arguing against:

but it's the rule of law on which a nation depends for its existence.

[Rob C]

This legal stuff avoids the issue: health aid free at the point of supply, for all a country's nationals.

Having to go to lawyers hardly forms part of what normal health experience is. Do you have to be hit by a truck in order to get attention? What if you just break a leg at home, do you go to a lawyer and sue yourself to get help? Do you hire a lawyer to find some other patsy you can milk or blame for your own stupidity? Bringing in the concept of claims against somebody because of injury is a separate subject, in this context the reddest of red herrings.

What we are - or should be talking about - is access to a medical service in case of illness, not necessarily of accident. Different concepts and situations, but in either case one should expect medical help without a credit card or a legal eagle. That many look for those commissions is not surprising, as equally unsurprising the fact that health insurance is so high just to protect insurance companies from marauding legal sharks looking for somebody's disaster to convert into their Bentley.

[RSL]

This legal stuff avoids the issue: health aid free at the point of supply, for all a country's nationals.

But health aid ISN'T free, Rob. NOTHING that has to be produced is free.

[Alan Klein]

Settlements are also a good indication that the law is ruling nothing. If you think about it carefully, it's an exchange of money so the law doesn't have to rule and nothing has to change.

Reminder: this is the original assessment that I'm arguing against:

Civil courts are only necessary when people can't agree when there are disputes.  If both parties can reach an agreement, then there is a settlement.  Happens all the time.  In fact, most disagreements are settled out of court through a process of negotiation and then settlement without even a thought of going to trial.   Lawyers and courts cost a lot of money and take a lot of time to reach a conclusion.  Most people prefer settlements.   Trusting a civil jury even when you think you are right is fraught with risk.  I know.  Believe me. 

[Alan Klein]

This legal stuff avoids the issue: health aid free at the point of supply, for all a country's nationals.
...

It's really tiring how Europeans constantly criticize America as being unfeeling.  In America, illegals get "free" health care.  They also have a right to send their children to taxpayer supported schools and get other benefits from the rest of us "nationals" who pay for all this support with our taxes.   

How are illegals handled in Europe?

[32BT]

Civil courts are only necessary when people can't agree when there are disputes.  If both parties can reach an agreement, then there is a settlement.  Happens all the time.  In fact, most disagreements are settled out of court through a process of negotiation and then settlement without even a thought of going to trial.   Lawyers and courts cost a lot of money and take a lot of time to reach a conclusion.  Most people prefer settlements.   Trusting a civil jury even when you think you are right is fraught with risk.  I know.  Believe me.

I understand.

And to answer your previous question: I wouldn't have an idea for an alternative, or a way for even lower barrier to entry. One thing in this context always fascinated me. In several countries (from South Americas, to China) there have existed for thousands of years, communal and individual landproperty rights based on ancestry. It's fascinating that this has worked without the extensive legal systems we know today. It's based on agreement, maybe not much different from settlements except for the post-agreement legal stuff that keeps all the lawyers busy and fed.

Just recently read an article that apparently there is a Dutch company helping out some South American government with documenting property borders using a phone app. The app simply documents the border and accumulates the agreement acknowledgement between neighbours. Not a lawyer in sight...

[32BT]

More info: https://tierraenpaz.com/home

[RSL]

Right, Oscar: "...executed by the Dutch Kadaster, the Colombian Land Agency and the Dutch embassy." Must be one of those FREE projects that doesn't cost the taxpayers anything. The money comes directly from Heaven.

[Robert Roaldi]

We're all adults here. Can we please stop criticizing these systems because they're not "free". Of course they're not free, everyone knows this. They are national insurance policies, everyone understands this. We use the word free in informal conversations as a shorthand.

[32BT]

Right, Oscar: "...executed by the Dutch Kadaster, the Colombian Land Agency and the Dutch embassy." Must be one of those FREE projects that doesn't cost the taxpayers anything. The money comes directly from Heaven.

I wasn't arguing that it was or has to be free. In fact, I would argue that the dependency for the existence of a nation is based on the stability of its monetary system. The fact that the US has at one time managed to couple its monetary unit to the prime global energysource was a rather brilliant move on their part, except that now oil is quickly running out.

[32BT]

As in: money represents productivity which obviously requires energy. Especially with deficits which can be thought of as "future productivity".

[Jeremy Roussak]

Lawyers take cases with no cost to their clients by taking 1/3 of any monies they win in settlement or trial.  Happens all the time in injury cases.

Not in England.

Jeremy

[Jeremy Roussak]

Nonsense, we already had the following observation. Think about this: how is access to the legal system available in your country for the poor and needy? And don't give me that pro bono crap, you first need legal advice to even know whether the law can be of assistance and then you actually need to win the case to potentially have the cost returned.

You are confused. I wrote that a system of rules must be in place for any country to function at all. How well that system might work in particular instances is irrelevant to the principle.

Jeremy