Feedback/Exchange? Forum

[89vision]

PM. I'll read yours.

[89vision]

Anyone?

[TommyK]

You wanted to end the Fed?

Most of your memories about your undergrad institution revolved IHOP?

You don't believe that a service that is partially supported by taxes, but also requires a user fee is unable to prevent somebody from using it if they don't provide that user fee? Are you serious?

You also want to "use the law" to compel people into action? In what way?

Are you serious? I don't even...

[89vision]

That was quite a respectful way to phrase it. Thanks. It's funny, because people thought it was crazy 5 years ago to audit the fed, and now look at how Congress is treating the issue. The Federal Reserve is the source of currency inflation and a wide variety of other issues. There is no provision in the Constitution to allow them to print money. Read about the federal reserve in depth and you will understand why people have an issue.

Yeah, my best memories tend to be those times I spent with friends, not in the library studying or listening to lectures in class. I said "some of the memories that come to mind," not "most of the memories." Feel free to re read that part if you have any doubts.

All people in a society pay some sort of taxes, and any service that a person pays for should be allowed to use that service. People shouldn't be turned away from using the turnpike, either. If your forced to pay for something, you should be allowed to use it.

The point is seeing something you disagree with, and realizing others, who also disagree with the action, decide not to act. I thought stating that in the essay made it clear. Law is the most effective way to do that. Congress comes up with laws that one lawyer can have overturned in the courts. We live in a country that overturned a serial rapists' case because he wasn't read his rights. So I do think law is a great way to overturn legislation.

Do you have any actual advice? You may want to read it again, because a lot of what you are saying is directly contradicted with what I wrote, meaning your feedback is not very useful.

[TommyK]

Feel free to re read that part if you have any doubts.

Sure, I'd be happy to read it again, but you deleted it from you original post.

All people in a society pay some sort of taxes, and any service that a person pays for should be allowed to use that service. People shouldn't be turned away from using the turnpike, either. If your forced to pay for something, you should be allowed to use it.

So because my taxes go in part to pay for the state schools in my state, I should be able to attend them without paying the additional tuition? Um, okay. I guess I don't really have an opinion about that except I think it's a stupid idea. If you do that, there's no incentive to pay the user fees so the costs to the general public will increase, providing a MUCH larger tax burden to all, even if they don't see any benefits from it.

I thought stating that in the essay made it clear

It was not clear. The way you framed it, it sounded like you wanted to use the law to make people prevent transit cops from throwing off homeless people off the bus for which he did not pay. That seems weird to me.

So I do think law is a great way to overturn legislation.

Sure, you can get a law deemed unconstitutional. You can get a conviction overturned on appeal. These things can be done. Lawyers can do these things. Focus on that then - you feel called to give a voice to those without political clout and power. That's a fine goal. But what you said wasn't that.

Do you have any actual advice?

Yeah, scrap this and start over focusing on one or two main points so it doesn't sound like a meandering mess.

You may want to read it again, because a lot of what you are saying is directly contradicted with what I wrote, meaning your feedback is not very useful

Again, you deleted all of it. So I'll just have to take your word on that.

[89vision]

"So because my taxes go in part to pay for the state schools in my state, I should be able to attend them without paying the additional tuition?"

It is not very respectful to call an idea stupid, when you use a straw man argument. If you can't be respectful, please don't bother replying.

Why not? If you pay into something, you should get something in return. I am pretty sure that is what social security is built on, and most people seem to agree with that. If my money pays for a service, I should be allowed to use it. Sure, the tragedy of the commons thing comes into play, but if it would cause more funding via taxes, then the gov would have to actually decide what services taxes should pay for. Classism is a form of discrimination. But, that is not a big part of the statement.

Eh, agree to disagree. This is actually the first negative feedback I received. The 6 other people who read it had a completely different reaction, and understood what the point was, without needing clarification.

I saw someone get ignored because of a lack of status, so I want represent people who are ignored, because society is less likely to stand up for them. Law is a means to represent the interests of others, and protect individual rights. This is not a declaration about the tax system, I stated that the people on the bus agreed that tax funded services should not be denied to others.

"We soon began discussing whether a taxpayer-supported entity could deny a citizen the right to use that entity, and before we arrived at my stop, we agreed that what occurred was wrong."

There is no conclusion reached about tax payer services. Taxes are mentioned in one sentence, so I really can't understand why you view that as a main point.

Why the experience impacted my desire to practice law:

"What I found most troubling about the experience was that people, including my friends, voluntarily allowed an agreed upon injustice to occur. I want to use the legal system as a means to overcome such inaction."

I think that is pretty clear, wanting to practice law because other people fail to act when an injustice occurs. It is not saying I want to do anything about the transit police. It is saying I want to practice law to overcome inaction, not to attack certain actions.

Again, if you want to give feedback, I'll message you. But if you are simply going to take an inference as an implication, and state that something that was mentioned once as the main point, I think I'll pass on your opinions. You don't have to be rude, unless you get off on that.

[TommyK]

It is not very respectful to call an idea stupid, when you use a straw man argument. If you can't be respectful, please don't bother replying.

I wasn't strawmanning you, bro. I didn't mischaracterize or replace your idea with something that was weaker, but superficially similar. I was putting your philosophy of user fees into the context of something outside of public transportation to point out that it isn't feasible.

I saw someone get ignored because of a lack of status, so I want represent people who are ignored, because society is less likely to stand up for them. Law is a means to represent the interests of others, and protect individual rights. This is not a declaration about the tax system, I stated that the people on the bus agreed that tax funded services should not be denied to others.

He wasn't ignored. He was profiled. If you want your injustice, there's your injustice. Because he looked (and was, indeed) homeless, that was the clear provocation for a transit cop boarding to check tickets and kick him off like Indiana Jones. But he wasn't ignored because of status; he was forcibly removed because he didn't pay for the service.

There is no conclusion reached about tax payer services. Taxes are mentioned in one sentence, so I really can't understand why you view that as a main point.

Okay... But it was the underpinning for the logic of an entire paragraph - that he had the "right" to be on and because he was disenfranchised his rights were violated and that you as a to-be-lawyer wanted to protect these rights (actually the way you phrased it, you wanted to compel other people to fight the transit cop, but I can understand how that might just be unfortunate wording).

I think that is pretty clear, wanting to practice law because other people fail to act when an injustice occurs. It is not saying I want to do anything about the transit police. It is saying I want to practice law to overcome inaction, not to attack certain actions.

Exactly - and this is weird to me. You want to "overcome inaction", where I'm trying to come up with how that would be possible. I mean, I guess if you wanted to teach seminars on how to stand up for some people's rights, then it would be possible but it would seem much more likely that a role as an attorney would be to prevent certain actions.

You don't have to be rude, unless you get off on that.

Don't be so sensitive. It's the interwebz; everybody's rude here. Try posting your PS publicly again as was and if the responses you get are dissimilar from mine, then fine - I'm the crazy person. Look, you want to help those without power. That's noble, but the PS, as was written, is not terribly focused or compelling. If that's still rude, I don't know what to tell you.