Top Law Schools

billydaduck wrote:So would a consensus be that I would be safe for Chicago this cycle and probably getting money? LSN using the range I gave gives 11-7-0 but no 173's waitlisted.

There weren't sufficient numbers for Stanford so that's the one I'm most looking for advice on.

midwest17 wrote:You're an anarchist who wants to be a lawyer? I'm confused.

billydaduck wrote:dnptan: Thank you that was helpful to see beyond what lsn info tells you about applicants; I wish you the best of luck!

midwest17: Nothing in anarchist belief would prevent someone from being a lawyer or a judge

Something I didn't ask; would it be worth mentioning that my school GPA is average is a 3.1 (have a letter of rec mention this)? I know today a lot of private schools have 3.4-3.6 medians.

billydaduck wrote:The best description I can give in a brief blog post is that anarchists accept the supremacy of the individual and therefore the state as understood as a monopoly of force over a given geographic area is immoral; that said you can have institutions that enforce laws and maintain an order in an area provided they are voluntary contracted with. The non aggression principle is key; if someone attacks or infringes you or your property then you have a right to defense. If such exploitative institutions exist around you it is not immoral to act within them provided you do not explicitly try to either expand them or increase their exploitative nature or prevent their dis-assembly

billydaduck wrote:The best description I can give in a brief blog post is that anarchists accept the supremacy of the individual and therefore the state as understood as a monopoly of force over a given geographic area is immoral; that said you can have institutions that enforce laws and maintain an order in an area provided they are voluntary contracted with. The non aggression principle is key; if someone attacks or infringes you or your property then you have a right to defense. If such exploitative institutions exist around you it is not immoral to act within them provided you do not explicitly try to either expand them or increase their exploitative nature or prevent their dis-assembly

billydaduck wrote:The best description I can give in a brief blog post is that anarchists accept the supremacy of the individual and therefore the state as understood as a monopoly of force over a given geographic area is immoral; that said you can have institutions that enforce laws and maintain an order in an area provided they are voluntary contracted with. The non aggression principle is key; if someone attacks or infringes you or your property then you have a right to defense. If such exploitative institutions exist around you it is not immoral to act within them provided you do not explicitly try to either expand them or increase their exploitative nature or prevent their dis-assembly

jbagelboy wrote:True anarchy means you reject the social contract. It's not particularly original. Libertarians simply limit it's realm. There's a distinction.

You aren't an anarchist. David Friedman is just a rogue classical economist. As far as the law is concerned, he basically advocates langdellian incentives-as-primacy social theory. It's not anarchism, its just reactionary and fictional.

You probably just don't like black people and you're cloaking it in political theory. Sounds like a postmodern commonality to me. Get over it bro!

Tiago Splitter wrote:

jbagelboy wrote:True anarchy means you reject the social contract. It's not particularly original. Libertarians simply limit it's realm. There's a distinction.

You aren't an anarchist. David Friedman is just a rogue classical economist. As far as the law is concerned, he basically advocates langdellian incentives-as-primacy social theory. It's not anarchism, its just reactionary and fictional.

You probably just don't like black people and you're cloaking it in political theory. Sounds like a postmodern commonality to me. Get over it bro!

Damn dude. Even by your standards this is especially douchey.