Does America have a lawyer problem, or a law problem?

http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2011/02/sunday-reflection-does-america-have-lawyer-problem-or-law-problem

I'm sure our many fine and able lawyers will have plenty to say about the failed premise, but what really struck me about the article was here:

If we want the kind of economic growth it's going to take to get us out of our current economic and indebtedness crisis, we're going to have to drastically reduce the number of laws and regulations confronting new and existing businesses.

That's hard to do piecemeal - hence the term "Demosclerosis." In his book, "The Rise and Decline of Nations: Economic Growth, Stagflation, and Social Rigidities," economist Mancur Olson noted that frequently it takes a war or a revolution to clear away enough regulatory and special-interest underbrush to allow for fresh economic growth.

But Olson also noted that America has shown a unique capacity for self-renewal, often managing to start afresh without the kind of traumatic cleansing required by other nations.

Before we had a mature and robust environmental movement, we had honest-to-God environmental fruit loops. Those early prophets pointing to a flaw in the system were weird. But at their core, they were right. Something did need to change.

Right now, the fruitloops are on the right. They want to talk about "revolution" all the time seem pretty flippant about the violent language. But I wonder if they're just a first generation crop of nutjobs that are on to something. We don't need an actual revolution, because we have a fantastic system that allows for renewal without all the blood. But their general dissatisfaction with a too-powerful central government and the lawyers thriving on the complicated laws of a bloated central government may eventually bud into a respectable, well articulated vision of a simpler central government.

I dunno about this thread, but I watched The Trial last night. Good movie. Both lawyers were great.

But their general dissatisfaction with a too-powerful central government and the lawyers thriving on the complicated laws of a bloated central government may eventually bud into a respectable, well articulated vision of a simpler central government.

What lawyers are thriving "on the complicated laws of a bloated central government". Really. Show me an example.

Because if you REALLY want to see lawyers thriving, you de-regulate everything and let the lawyers feed on the resulting after-the-fact lawsuits. Regulations define boundaries and set standards. Ask yourself how things are going to get better if we have to re-define those boundaries and standards and we have to re-argue the same issues over and over and over with every new case, and with an increase in cases because businesses and people don't have a clear understanding of what they are allowed to do without the guideline of regulations.

It's a complex world with complex problems. Not everything has simple solutions. Yes, I'm sure there are many ways we can clarify laws for small businesses and simplify compliance. But the idea of de-regulation as a path to a "simpler central government" is no solution. It's just simple minded.

I don't know whether the author is right, but I do remember deregulation leading to an economic disaster about two and half years ago. I mean, its not like business can be trusted to "always do what is right." Nor should it be.

??

Mo-boNsFfCU

??

An extreme and odd case that should be corrected. The story is also lacking any background into the law or how it was applied to the case. In other words is it a bad law or bad interpretation. What was the result? Let's see...

http://www.oregonlive.com/washingtoncounty/index.ssf/2011/01/state_board_denies_82-year-old.html

Smith made his case before the state Board of Cosmetology on Monday, with the help of Rep. Matt Wingard, R-Wilsonville, whose district includes Sherwood. But their plea for an exception to the law brought only a partial victory, Wingard said. The board ruled Smith can be observed at his shop instead of going back to school, but he'll still have to pass a 75-question exam -- in Salem -- on state rules and statutes before he's allowed to cut hair again, Wingard said.

Monday's Board of Cosmetology ruling came after a couple of hours of deliberation.

"We appreciate the human aspect of this issue," board Chair Debora Masten said in a released statement. "But we are bound by the law's requirements, no matter how much we might want to make an exception for an individual."

Wingard said he feels the decision sends the wrong message, and hoped the state could "get out of its own way" in Smith's case. Wingard is considering introducing legislation in the upcoming House session to make the law more flexible, he said.

Does that mean all regulation is bad? Do you not want people who cut your hair to meet some requirements for knowledge of hygiene and the chemicals they may use? The bottom line is that you have just demonstrated a system with a flaw that is being addressed. Not a reason for complete de-regulation of an industry.

America clearly has too many lawyers. Why? Because Law schools are relatively easy to get into, easy to get degrees from, and the promise of big dollars is very pressent in that career field. Frankly we have so many lawyers today that if you don't finishish in the top 20% of your law school class, the large lawfirms won't even look at you. If you finish in the bottom half you may be waiting tables for a living.

America has too few doctors... Why? Because medical school positions are very difficult to get into.

America has too few Engineers... Why? Because engineering is a difficult field to achieve a degree in, requireing both spacial and mathmatical aptitude, salaries are artificially deflated and kept low, jobs are hard to come by, and there are much easier ways to make decent money.. Law for example.

This is a BS op-ed. He talks about a law in Greece to complain about the American legal system?

If we want the kind of economic growth it's going to take to get us out of our current economic and indebtedness crisis, we're going to have to drastically reduce the number of laws and regulations confronting new and existing businesses.

Shorter Glenn Reynolds: "I'm paid to write columns. My ideology is toward de-regulation, I'm going to complain about regulations, but do so in such a broad and vague way you won't know exactly what I'm complaining about. Then I'm going to blame regulations and laws for the economic ills of America. And then I'm going to conclude by saying its time we de-regulate. But I'm not going to get detailed enough or specific enough to spark much of a conversation."

I don't know whether the author is right, but I do remember deregulation leading to an economic disaster about two and half years ago. I mean, its not like business can be trusted to "always do what is right." Nor should it be.

The notion that our current economic condition was created by deregulation is as much of a broad-brush, let's-blame-an-easy-target political talking point as is the notion that our current economic condition was created by the government promoting housing for the poor. I say this as someone who thinks that major banks provide virtually nothing to society, and should be broken up immediately, with many of their executives going to jail.

Does that mean all regulation is bad? Do you not want people who cut your hair to meet some requirements for knowledge of hygiene and the chemicals they may use? The bottom line is that you have just demonstrated a system with a flaw that is being addressed. Not a reason for complete de-regulation of an industry.

This is a particularly interesting statement to break down. Let's go sentence-by-sentence.

"Does that mean all regulation is bad?"

An obviously rhetorical question intended to imply that by posting a video about an apparently absurd execution of regulations in a thread about absurd execution of regulations, twa is arguing that all regulation is bad. Now, knowing twa, I'm sure there haven't been too many instances in which he jumped into a thread to sing the praises of government regulation. But you manage to take things one step further by extending your personal pattern of mischaracterizing any political arguments you happen to disagree with as hyperbolic caricatures of themselves, which ironically takes one of twa's weaknesses and makes it a strength. Rather than trying to pin him down on the fact that he's likely to post that video in any thread about deregulation, or that posting that video is a painfully transparent attempt to use an anecdotal case to make a point about the legal framework of an entire nation, you've instead decided to take an even more ridiculous stance than twa's, which in turn makes him look like a wise sensei full of cold, hard logic to your crazy person wearing a sandwich board.

Congratulations on that one.

"Do you not want people who cut your hair to meet some requirements for knowledge of hygiene and the chemicals they may use?"

No. Of course he doesn't. What possible difference could there be between saying that a man who's been cutting hair for fifty years probably doesn't need to go back to barber school, and saying that there should be no requirements whatsoever for going into the hair-cutting business?

"The bottom line is that you have just demonstrated a system with a flaw that is being addressed. Not a reason for complete de-regulation of an industry."

...which would be relevant if twa had been arguing for the "complete de-regulation" of anything. twa also didn't present an argument that the sky is green. Why didn't you mention that as well?

Perhaps a little off topic but this is a commentary from John Stossel about the Government stepping in to "protect" consumers from consumer choices (baggage fees for checked bags)

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b55_1277901930

I wish the Government would spend a lot less time protecting me from me.

a bunch of stuff

Congratulations on arguing with yourself. Perhaps you missed the reason I asked TWA "Does that mean all regulation is bad?".

Because he didn't post *any* argument. But you knew that didn't you. You just want to argue with me. So here's my rebuttal...

:moon:

I've had the (miss)fortune to sit in management meetings at the small companies I've worked at for almost two decades.

Not once in the best part of twenty years have we thought of a brilliant idea which we couldn't implement profitably because of excessive legislation or legal costs.

Anecdote <> data, I know. But I don't see businesses paralyzed by such problems.

Now the Federal government adds cost to its operating because of contractual terms it places on its suppliers, but that is just a requirement of operating in that market and the costs are recovered by the supplier.

we're going to have to drastically reduce the number of laws and regulations confronting new and existing businesses.

If that's the answer then God help us...seriously...God help us because we'll be at the mercy of business.

It always amazes me that the Right can so utterly fear the evils of government and yet blissfully trust the benevolence of business.

If that's the answer then God help us...seriously...God help us because we'll be at the mercy of business.

It always amazes me that the Right can so utterly fear the evils of government and yet blissfully trust the benevolence of business.

I listened to President Obama on the radio today for a few minutes talk about regulations. I'm pretty sure he was talking to some business organization. He did a good job espousing the virtues of regulations but then he went on to agree with the point of the article that you just quoted. We have to drastically reduce the number of laws and regulations. According to President Obama, we have a slew of outdated and onerous regulations that made sense when they were written but are outdated in today's marketplace.

So either President Obama has swung to the right or its not just the right that thinks we need to get rid of some regulations.

Not once in the best part of twenty years have we thought of a brilliant idea which we couldn't implement profitably because of excessive legislation or legal costs.

How about simply a good one?

The govt certainly has not kept me from making profits all these yrs,they have made it where I won't hire anyone w/o them being a clear benefit to me.

If it's marginal why bother with added bs and liability?

I listened to President Obama on the radio today for a few minutes talk about regulations. I'm pretty sure he was talking to some business organization. He did a good job espousing the virtues of regulations but then he went on to agree with the point of the article that you just quoted. We have to drastically reduce the number of laws and regulations. According to President Obama, we have a slew of outdated and onerous regulations that made sense when they were written but are outdated in today's marketplace.

So either President Obama has swung to the right or its not just the right that thinks we need to get rid of some regulations.

Democrats will read that quote one way, i.e. the way that Obama read it, Republicans (Libertarians especially) will read it and use it to support their claim that less regulation (i.e. "gov't interference") is what we need.

The govt certainly has not kept me from making profits all these yrs,they have made it where I won't hire anyone w/o them being a clear benefit to me.

If it's marginal why bother with added bs and liability?

What specific bs and liability has prevented you hiring?

How about simply a good one?

The govt certainly has not kept me from making profits all these yrs,they have made it where I won't hire anyone w/o them being a clear benefit to me.

If it's marginal why bother with added bs and liability?

Yeah, who needs all the hassle of making sure that you're not abusing your workers...

our law professor in chief

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/02/07/obama_corporate_profits_have_to_be_shared_by_american_workers.html

ASF ...it worked with the wife and kids(abuse is now high expectations)

Cor...the only thing preventing it is desire and clear benefit

I figure I'm doing them a favor by not having a ******* for a boss.

This thread is like a Seinfeld episode, and so is the discussion. I bet even Obama's speech and ideas are like a Seinfeld episode. "The show about nothing!" No one has given one damn good example of what the hell they are talking about other than in broad sweeping terms. twa, good on you... you shouldn't feel pressure to hire someone for the sake of hiring someone...

I think it works both ways. Too many laws create bureaucracy that isn't needed, but lawyers are just doing their job with regulations that are in place. With that said lawyers are litigious and have created the need to pass some of these laws that bog down getting things like necessary service projects done. See construction planning on Ground Zero.

America clearly has too many lawyers. Why? Because Law schools are relatively easy to get into, easy to get degrees from, and the promise of big dollars is very pressent in that career field. Frankly we have so many lawyers today that if you don't finishish in the top 20% of your law school class, the large lawfirms won't even look at you. If you finish in the bottom half you may be waiting tables for a living.

America has too few doctors... Why? Because medical school positions are very difficult to get into.

America has too few Engineers... Why? Because engineering is a difficult field to achieve a degree in, requireing both spacial and mathmatical aptitude, salaries are artificially deflated and kept low, jobs are hard to come by, and there are much easier ways to make decent money.. Law for example.

Lots of flaws and holes in this. To take on only a few of the most glaring.

"we have so many lawyers today that if you don't finishish in the top 20% of your law school class, the large lawfirms won't even look at you."

The biggest lawfirms only want the best and the brightest. It doesn't have anything to do with quantity of graduates. Do you think Ernst Young is rushing out to hire CPAs who finished in the bottom half of their class? Lots of top 20% type folks choose to avoid the big firms because most of them are sweatshops, and people are willing to sacrificing some salary in exchange for what they hope will be a semblance of a normal life.

As with many things, there are several bottom tier or unaccredited law schools that are relatively easy to get into. Competition to get into top 25 law schools is fierce. I would not say it's easy to get into a good school.

I know a ton of engineers. I don't know any who have had a hard time finding a job. Many of them work for the government, which means they get 40 hour work weeks. With the money they make compared to the amount of time they have to put into their job, they're doing quite well for themselves. Anyone who goes to law school solely for the lure of big $$$ is a complete idiot. There are much, much better ways to make money (even if engineering isn't one of them).

If that's the answer then God help us...seriously...God help us because we'll be at the mercy of business.

It always amazes me that the Right can so utterly fear the evils of government and yet blissfully trust the benevolence of business.

you do understand that if you have a disagreement with a business that you can choose to not purchase their products. If you have a disagreement with the government, they have all of the recourse and you have none.

It is not that businesses are all "good" it is that they are more directly subject to the will of their customers.

you do understand that if you have a disagreement with a business that you can choose to not purchase their products. If you have a disagreement with the government, they have all of the recourse and you have none.

It is not that businesses are all "good" it is that they are more directly subject to the will of their customers.

Why would you assume customers would be in a position to know what businesses are doing? No govt regulations/testing is basically free reign to use lead paint in toys, dump at will, and cut all sorts of corners in the name of low costs. The barriers to information are virtually insurmountable for the average consumer.

Deregulation requires you to believe in the honesty, integrity and trustworthiness of the people in the best position to game the system for their own personal gain without being discovered.

you do understand that if you have a disagreement with a business that you can choose to not purchase their products.

And yet, if my kid gets cancer because of a product or because of waste run-off from a business they'll still be sick...oh sure the company will be forced to pay but only after a long drawn out legal battle against their well funded lawyers, and then will appeal any awarded amount. See December90 not all offenses by businesses are as benign as you would like to make them, this is the mythology of the goodness of business, "Go buy another product" well the reality is that I don't have to buy a product from a company for that company to affect my life in very drastic ways.

If you have a disagreement with the government, they have all of the recourse and you have none.

Wow, what an utterly scared, and fatalistic approach, no wonder you don't trust the government....question...why do you vote if you feel you have no recourse?

It is not that businesses are all "good" it is that they are more directly subject to the will of their customers.

Yeah right, businesses only respond to the will of their customer when it will hurt their bottom line, governments respond to the will of the people at every election. I'm sure Enron was very responsive to the will of their customers, what about Exxon yep very responsive.

Again please stop preaching the mythology of the benevolence of business.

---------- Post added February-8th-2011 at 09:11 AM ----------

Deregulation requires you to believe in the honesty, integrity and trustworthiness of the people in the best position to game the system for their own personal gain without being discovered.

Exactly, and this mythology is proclaimed as gospel in spite of the fact that our not so distant history is filled with evidence to the contrary.