So, you think administrative law isn't law? Probably most conflicts in the US that get as far as formal adjuducation are handled by administrative agencies or arbitration. Also. most lawyers are transactional, they don't do conflicts, they assist people in transactions, prepare contracts, trusts, wills, deeds, and the like.
jks
(Let's assume
>Justin's market socialism, so we can keep the parameters constant.)
>The first question is not, will we need lawyers but will we need
>adjudiction of conflict?
>
>I suppose that such a need will arise in almost any set of social
>relations, and where conflict arises _some_ sort of adjudication will be
>necessary. But what kind?
>
>In Justin's socialism, there will eventually be conflicts (we hope
>non-antagonistic in Mao's sense) between different production units.
>Would such conflicts require adjudication?
>
>I don't think so. They would either be resolved administratively
>(through some sort of bureaucracy) or _politically_. Market or no
>market, economic decisions in a socialist social order must eventually
>be resolved politically, not "economically" or "legalistically." That
>is, if market socialism works at all, then it will work well enough so
>the losing party in such administratively or politically resolved
>disputes will not have his/her way of life or fundamental living
>conditions threatened.
>
>So the kind of "lawyers" that would be needed for this sort of dispute
>would more resemble those of ancient Athens or Rome than of modern u.s.
>-- i.e. they would be sophists who taught citizens how to speak their
>own case before political or administrative bodies.
>
>But I dunno.
>
>Carrol
>
>Final sentence above quoted from following epic:
>
>
> To Be or Not To Be
> by Anon
>
>I sometimes think I'd rather crow
>And be a rooster than to roost
>And be a crow. But I dunno.
>
>A rooster he can roost also,
>Which don't seem fair when crows can't crow.
>Which may help, some. Still I dunno.
>
>Crows should be glad of one thing, though;
>Nobody thinks of eating crow,
>While roosters they are good enough
>For anyone unless they're tough.
>
>There are lots of tough old roosters though,
>And anyway a crow can't crow,
>So mebby roosters stand more show.
>It looks that way. But I dunno.
_________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.