[lbo-talk] Give Up

John Thornton jthorn65 at mchsi.com
Sun Aug 17 14:50:03 PDT 2003


At 11:38 AM 8/14/03 -0400, Jon Johanning wrote:
>On Wednesday, August 13, 2003, at 07:05 PM, John Thornton wrote:
>
>>Anyone (loosely defined) can build a bridge but it takes an engineer to
>>design one.
>
>If you are game to take a bridge design from an engineer and set about
>building it, I would be eager to watch you do it.

Sorry for the late reply, I had to go out of town unexpectedly. If this offer still stands I am willing to build a bridge if you are interesting in doing more than observe. If you pay for all costs except labor and design you may watch. I have a site already selected.


>>Ask yourself what other profession so openly appears to lie to the public
>>every time they appear.
>
>In the last few years, I have had occasion to rely on lawyers to keep a
>close relative out of jail twice. They did a good job, and I thoroughly
>appreciated their work, though they did cost a pretty penny. But it was
>worth it. (PS -- they didn't tell a single lie in the process.)

I'm glad you had a positive experience. I too have had more than one positive experience with lawyers and they have kept me out of jail on one occasion. Money well spent. I am not certain but perhaps you missed the word "appears" in my post. I do not claim that lawyers lie more often than anyone else, only that to many people they appear to lie quite frequently. I was suggesting this as a possible explanation for many peoples dislike of lawyers as compared to doctors or teachers.


>>We live in a very complex world and lawyers are a necessity. I would
>>never argue otherwise. Anyone who argues that lawyers don't attempt to
>>increase their necessity (and therefore their power) by making things
>>more complex doesn't live in the real world any more than someone who
>>advocates their abolition.
>
>Even when the world was much less complex, there were lawyers, and the
>complaints that they just made things more difficult to justify their own
>employment, and "made the worse case appear the better" by lying, and so
>on, date back to ancient Athens (the Sophists were the lawyers of their
>time), at least.

Carrol Cox reply to this was more eloquent than mine so I won't add anything.


> For example, the unbelievable complexity of the tax law, it seems, is
> not due to tax lawyers trying to keep themselves in business, but to all
> sorts of powerful interests putting pressure on Congress to get loopholes
> for themselves written into the law. Yes, lawyers on the staffs of the
> Congresspersons write the laws, but the original pressure comes from the
> economic interests.

I don't recall arguing that lawyers attempts to increase their necessity and therefore their power was the only reason laws were written the way they are. I don't recall arguing that this was the primary reason either, only that it exists and operates in a different atmosphere for lawyers than for doctors, teachers, engineers. etc. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe lawyers are,as a group,more altruistic than teachers or doctors. I've not read research that suggests this is true and I have read research which suggests just the opposite. If you can find anywhere in my post where I claim lawyers are less trustworthy than non-lawyers please repost it. If you can find where I have claimed we should eliminate lawyers or even reduce their numbers please repost it. If you find where I claim any perceived negative behavior is engaged in by lawyers with greater frequency than non-lawyers please repost it. I have not said anything negative about lawyers nor do I believe they are responsible for a disproportionate amount of social ill. You have read things in my post that simply do not exist.

John Thornton



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list