tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post7543799702764040983..comments2024-03-26T06:17:49.527-07:00Comments on Had Enough Therapy?: The Rule of LawyersStuart Schneidermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12784043736879991769noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-76057744660173195872014-08-30T13:50:53.702-07:002014-08-30T13:50:53.702-07:00Well, maybe so, Anon, but we can also see it as ex...Well, maybe so, Anon, but we can also see it as extortion or as pay-to-play. On the smaller business side, read http://www.coyoteblog.com/Sam L.https://www.blogger.com/profile/00996809377798862214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-42372112301178436642014-08-30T10:26:04.632-07:002014-08-30T10:26:04.632-07:00"... There is a difference between the rule o..."... There is a difference between the rule of law and the rule of lawyers."<br /><br />"The increasing criminalisation of corporate behaviour in America is bad for the rule of law and for capitalism."<br /><br />There is no difference between the rule of law and the rule of lawyers in today's America. Lawyers have co-opted the public's spirit for the rule of law and used it for their own gain. In addition, the legal academy's voracious appetite for progressivism and secularism since the early 20th century has divorced a lawyer's educational foundation from metaphysics, morality and ethics. This separates law from its true role in society, creating the win-at-all-costs attorney/hero/defender against the unhinged, ideological legal activist. Pick a team... whose side are you on? But this rot goes further and deeper, into the way people separate themselves from their social bonds/obligations. Just as the banker excuses unscrupulous choices on the grounds that "Making money by any means possible is my job, and everyone knows it," we can draw equivalence to the legal profession's "Doing whatever is necessary is my duty to my client, and everyone know it." <br /><br />However, it's not that simple. The legal profession has done something more insidious, something that is eating at the heart of capitalism, civics and voluntary association: forcing us to live by the letter (not the spirit) of the law. These knights on paperback offer protection from the evils that lurk with us all, ostensibly to may make our lives more "livable." Lawyers have progressively replaced normal social ethics with legalism as a more reliable means to give society structure and safety. But lets's be clear: the legal system cannot possibly fulfill that charge. Today's legalism serves as an arrogant counter to John Fletcher Mouton's famous remark: "Obedience to the unenforceable is the extent to which the individuals composing the nation can be trusted to obey self-imposed law." In place of this self-regulation, laws and regulations pile up to mitigate bad behavior. Honor fast disappears as a core component of masculinity. Being clever becomes the most important part of the job. Soon, it's every man for himself. Society grows more and more dysfunctional. Is this any way to live?<br /><br />If every businessman knows he's skirting or breaking the law, or fears he's exposed to thousands of laws he doesn't know about, he comes to see himself as a de facto criminal -- no matter how many rationalizations and positive affirmations he comes up with. He fears getting caught by a vast legal system that continually threatens to prosecute him, supported by an expanding police state collecting data on his crimes (to protect us from "terrorism"). Feds frantically beg and bribe Bank of America to purchase Countrywide amidst the 2008 economic implosion, and then prosecute BofA to win billions in fines (6 years later, for Countrywide's contribution the original mess). The businessman's life becomes a race against time, in between buying politicians (almost all lawyers) for protection. In the interim, he attempts to gain as much wealth as he can, as quickly as he can, and hires his own attorneys to fend off those of their same species. It's called racketeering. There are laws against racketeering. Who's enforcing them? Ah, yes, the lawyers, who will all say in unison "I'm just doing my job." And they're right. And that's the problem: it's a closed system.<br /><br />Author Philip K. Howard, himself a lawyer, points out that law is created by society to serve society, not so that society will serve law. That's the most cogent explanation of what we're up against. Props to the The Economist for calling things as they are.Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18222603717128565302noreply@blogger.com