A Modest Proposal Forum

[GWdawg]

Commenting on your argument is not necessary. I believe the fallacies of your argument have been revealed thoroughly enough that there is no need for me to simply repeat what has already been said.

That being said, I believe there is still something a little more to be said about both you and your argument. It is very hypocritical of you to take the supposed high road and bitch about people attacking you rather than your argument when your argument is in fact an ad hominem attack on other people. Your proposed changes to the legal profession are based upon the assumption that those who do not score as highly on the lsat are, in your own words, not qualified to be lawyers. Your implication is that they are too stupid to be admitted into the same profession as yourself.

You are an arrogant prick and I reiterate my hope that you crash, burn, and spend the rest of your life living in your parents' basement.

Get over yourself. Fast.

PS: I've read all these posts, and you were the first to make personal comments against reasonable.

[reasonable_man]

try wall street bud; not jersey.

[Renzo]

ITT: Veyron outs himself as an XOXO troll.

[Veyron]

Commenting on your argument is not necessary. I believe the fallacies of your argument have been revealed thoroughly enough that there is no need for me to simply repeat what has already been said.

That being said, I believe there is still something a little more to be said about both you and your argument. It is very hypocritical of you to take the supposed high road and bitch about people attacking you rather than your argument when your argument is in fact an ad hominem attack on other people. Your proposed changes to the legal profession are based upon the assumption that those who do not score as highly on the lsat are, in your own words, not qualified to be lawyers. Your implication is that they are too stupid to be admitted into the same profession as yourself.

A bit of anecdotal evidence in support of my point. GW student does not know how to identify an ad hominem attack.

[GWdawg]

I was a classics major undergrad at GW. Not only do I know what ad hominem means rhetorically, I can translate it.

[GWdawg]

I was a classics major undergrad at GW. Not only do I know what ad hominem means rhetorically, I can translate it.

Ha. Irony is a always a little hard to get across the internet.

Touche sir.

[NayBoer]

The justification offered is always the same: to protect the consumer. However, the reason is demonstrated by observing who lobbies at the state legislature for the imposition or strengthening of licensure. The lobbyists are invariably representatives of the occupation in question rather than of the customers. True enough, plumbers presumably know better than anyone else what their customers need to be protected against. However, it is hard to regard altruistic concern for their customers as the primary motive behind their determined efforts to get legal power to decide who may be a plumber.

[Veyron]

The above is valid critique. The truth is that if I'm going to argue this from a true Objectivist perspective I should probably admit that the objective is the benefit me personally. After all, the ABA exists for the betterment of lawyers, not consumers. By convincing consumers (rightly) that they also benefit, I am simply developing allies for my cause. However, if its accreditation standards negatively impact consumers in the long run, they would be free to use lawyers without the ABA seal of approval under the Modest Proposal. I doubt that this would actually happen, however.

[Yimbeezy]

The above is valid critique. The truth is that if I'm going to argue this from a true Objectivist perspective I should probably admit that the objective is the benefit me personally. After all, the ABA exists for the betterment of lawyers, not consumers. By convincing consumers (rightly) that they also benefit, I am simply developing allies for my cause. However, if its accreditation standards negatively impact consumers in the long run, they would be free to use lawyers without the ABA seal of approval under the Modest Proposal. I doubt that this would actually happen, however.

Ahahahahaha!!!

Ayn Rand's theoretical lens is about as a developed as the emotional intelligence of that asshole kid in 4th grade who stole everyone's lunch money.

[Veyron]

[/quote]

Ahahahahaha!!!

Ayn Rand's theoretical lens is about as a developed as the emotional intelligence of that asshole kid in 4th grade who stole everyone's lunch money.[/quote]

Have you even read any of her books?

[Yimbeezy]

Have you even read any of her books?

No, I'm one of those uneducated knee-jerk liberals. Fuck outta here. She just bitches. Completely nonacademic, her ideas lack any sense of rigor and exhibit hilarious simplicity of thought.

Reply as you will, I'm not going to respond as this isn't going to go anywhere right now. I just wanted to make sure anyone perusing the thread saw that you wrote that.

[NayBoer]

The above is valid critique. The truth is that if I'm going to argue this from a true Objectivist perspective I should probably admit that the objective is the benefit me personally. After all, the ABA exists for the betterment of lawyers, not consumers. By convincing consumers (rightly) that they also benefit, I am simply developing allies for my cause. However, if its accreditation standards negatively impact consumers in the long run, they would be free to use lawyers without the ABA seal of approval under the Modest Proposal. I doubt that this would actually happen, however.

Customers don't really care if there's too much competition for the people providing them services. Would you rather there be fewer plumbers and fewer delivery companies, or more of them? I'd rather there be more, both so competition forces them to improve service and cost, and because the more there are available the more options I have.

You could however argue that accreditation for quality of attorneys, not quantity, would benefit customers.

If we're talking massive reforms of the system of practicing law, I'd go the opposite direction and suggest we legalize corporate practice of law and allow corporations to compete with traditional law firms. Something along the lines of accounting firms, which also have certain duties to clients, should at least be an option. It shouldn't be illegal to try and make it work. Ditto for corporate practice of medicine. There's just a silly mindset out there that says doctors and lawyers are fundamentally different from other careers and should never toil for corporations like the peons do.

[Veyron]

^
How is what you are describing different than in-house?