go directly to jail
johan....@comcast.net
for those who cannot afford private representation. Slate magazine has
an interesting article about how badly it is working:
http://www.slate.com/id/2142701/
Some quotes:
"Approximately 80 percent of criminal defendants cannot afford counsel
and must rely on publicly provided defense. Suspects around the country
routinely fill jails and wait weeks or months for a lawyer and a
hearing. When they do finally get a lawyer, that person is typically so
overworked that they have little time to talk to their client,
investigate the case, research the law, or otherwise provide meaningful
representation."
"And so people plead guilty, at a rate of 90 percent to 95 percent. The
criminal trial is nearly extinct. Most defendants never get the
benefits of the constitutional protections contained in the Bill of
Rights. To be charged with a crime means, in practice, that you will
most likely plead guilty to a crime, not because you are guilty, but
because the system offers no other realistic options."
Johan Larson
Keith F. Lynch
> The public defender system that is supposed to provide legal counsel
> for those who cannot afford private representation. Slate magazine
> has an interesting article about how badly it is working:
> http://www.slate.com/id/2142701/
I'm glad someone besides me is saying it. Gideon is a cruel hoax, and
indigent defendants would be better off with no representation at all
than under the current system where they have a second prosecutor who
masquerades as their attorney.
Of course to pro-prosecution people, this isn't a bug, but a feature,
and the system is working exactly as they'd like.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.
johan....@comcast.net
Keith F. Lynch wrote:
> <johan....@comcast.net> wrote:
> > The public defender system that is supposed to provide legal counsel
> > for those who cannot afford private representation. Slate magazine
> > has an interesting article about how badly it is working:
> > http://www.slate.com/id/2142701/
>
> I'm glad someone besides me is saying it. Gideon is a cruel hoax, and
> indigent defendants would be better off with no representation at all
> than under the current system where they have a second prosecutor who
> masquerades as their attorney.
>
> Of course to pro-prosecution people, this isn't a bug, but a feature,
> and the system is working exactly as they'd like.
I can see a whole lot of people not caring very much about how well
indigent defendants are represented. I have a hard time thinking there
are people who think useless representation on the public's nickel is a
good thing.
Johan Larson
Keith F. Lynch
> I can see a whole lot of people not caring very much about how well
> indigent defendants are represented. I have a hard time thinking
> there are people who think useless representation on the public's
> nickel is a good thing.
It isn't useless. It greases the skids. This is a bad thing for
those caught up in the system, of course, and for their freinds and
family, but is a good thing for everyone who believes that every
accused person is guilty.
I ran into a William H. Bacharach at Balticon. He is one of the many
people who believe that every accused person is guilty. They're rare
in fandom, but common elsewhere. He was absolutely certain that if
I was convicted then I must have been guilty. And that if I wasn't
guilty, that it would have been a simple matter to get the conviction
promptly overturned. When I brought up DNA evidence which had
exonerated hundreds of innocent people, often after they had spent
*decades* in prison, he became extremely angry at me. So angry that
the host of the party we were at evicted him, lest he become violent.
James A. Donald
wrote:
> Some quotes: "Approximately 80 percent of criminal
> defendants cannot afford counsel and must rely on
> publicly provided defense. Suspects around the country
> routinely fill jails and wait weeks or months for a
> lawyer and a hearing. When they do finally get a
> lawyer, that person is typically so overworked that
> they have little time to talk to their client,
> investigate the case, research the law, or otherwise
> provide meaningful representation."
My observation is that they are not in the least
overworked, that they spend perhaps an hour a day on
their supposed job, if that.
The job of public defender is much sought after, because
it is pretty much free money.
--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald
James A. Donald
> I can see a whole lot of people not caring very much about how well
> indigent defendants are represented. I have a hard time thinking there
> are people who think useless representation on the public's nickel is a
> good thing.
Lawyers tend to think it is a good thing, for much the same reason
they think the current medical malpractice business is a good thing.
mike weber
James A. Donald wrote:
> My observation is that they are not in the least
> overworked, that they spend perhaps an hour a day on
> their supposed job, if that.
>
> The job of public defender is much sought after, because
> it is pretty much free money.
>
Ummm, want to substantiate that claim, friend? Guy Lillian iii, the
Public Defender that i (and a number of the regulars here) know is
apparently typical of his office([s] he's worked for the PD's offices
in three[i think] Louisiana parishes), and i know that he puts in long
weeks, really cares about his clients, and gets a fair number of
acquittals
I haven't got the URL for the online version of his zine, "Challenger",
in which he talks at length and with passion about cases he's won (and
some he's lost)..
Most jurisdictions that i know of have trouble paying their PDs.
mike weber
mike weber wrote:
> Most jurisdictions that i know of have trouble paying their PDs.
Ho ho. I hadn't checked the referenced article; it refers to thye New
Orleans PD's office.
Guy Lillian is currently in Shreveport in the PD's office there instead
of in one of the NOLa-area parish PD's offices where he used to work is
that they had to cut back off due to budget cuts.
I'll ask Kate whether the low opinion expressed of PDs applies to the
Hall County office. I'm opretty sure it doesn't; sounds more like the
County Prosecutor's office.
David Friedman
"mike weber" <fairp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> James A. Donald wrote:
>
> > My observation is that they are not in the least
> > overworked, that they spend perhaps an hour a day on
> > their supposed job, if that.
> >
> > The job of public defender is much sought after, because
> > it is pretty much free money.
> >
>
> Ummm, want to substantiate that claim, friend? Guy Lillian iii, the
> Public Defender that i (and a number of the regulars here) know is
> apparently typical of his office([s] he's worked for the PD's offices
> in three[i think] Louisiana parishes), and i know that he puts in long
> weeks, really cares about his clients, and gets a fair number of
> acquittals
There are a variety of different systems. In some places there is a full
time public defender's office, in others private attorneys are paid to
represent particular indigents.
About fifteen years ago, there was a mild scandal in one of the
midwestern states over attorneys making contributions to judges'
reelection campaigns and those judges then making them court appointed
attorneys for indigent defendants. I think that provided evidence that,
in that state at that time, the court appointed attorneys were doing
even less work than they were being paid for.
I suspect that there are some public defenders who are dedicated
professionals, making less per hour than they could in private practice.
I suspect there are other court appointed attorneys, public defenders or
otherwise, who treat the job as a valuable plum.
Interested parties may want to look at an old piece that I coauthored:
Rethinking Indigent Defense: Promoting Effective Representation Through
Consumer Sovereignty and Freedom of Choice for All Criminal Defendants"
David Friedman and Stephen J. Schulhofer. American Criminal Law Review,
Vol 31 nbr 1 (Fall 1993), pp. 73-122.
It's a proposal for a voucher system for indigent defendants. When we
were working on it there was some speculation at U of C on which of us
was corrupting which, Steve and I being regarded as on opposite sides of
the political spectrum. I thought the question was settled when we gave
a workshop on the paper and I had the pleasure of hearing Steve
Schulhofer lecturing Richard Posner on the virtues of the free market.
--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of _Harald_, a fantasy without magic.
Published by Baen, in bookstores now
Alan Winston - SSRL Central Computing
>On 31 May 2006 15:12:32 -0700, johan....@comcast.net
>wrote:
>> Some quotes: "Approximately 80 percent of criminal
>> defendants cannot afford counsel and must rely on
>> publicly provided defense. Suspects around the country
>> routinely fill jails and wait weeks or months for a
>> lawyer and a hearing. When they do finally get a
>> lawyer, that person is typically so overworked that
>> they have little time to talk to their client,
>> investigate the case, research the law, or otherwise
>> provide meaningful representation."
>
>My observation is that they are not in the least
>overworked, that they spend perhaps an hour a day on
>their supposed job, if that.
Have you had much opportunity to observe this in person? (I haven't.
I know a PD in fandom, Guy H. Lillian III; to hear him tell it, it's
a much harder job than that. Haven't watched him do it, though.)
-- Alan
johan....@comcast.net
David Friedman wrote:
> I suspect that there are some public defenders who are dedicated
> professionals, making less per hour than they could in private practice.
> I suspect there are other court appointed attorneys, public defenders or
> otherwise, who treat the job as a valuable plum.
>
> Interested parties may want to look at an old piece that I coauthored:
>
> Rethinking Indigent Defense: Promoting Effective Representation Through
> Consumer Sovereignty and Freedom of Choice for All Criminal Defendants"
> David Friedman and Stephen J. Schulhofer. American Criminal Law Review,
> Vol 31 nbr 1 (Fall 1993), pp. 73-122.
>
> It's a proposal for a voucher system for indigent defendants.
How much money are we talking about? Suppose I want to mount a decent
defence against a mid-level criminal charge, such as burglary. Will $5K
do?
Johan Larson
Randolph Fritz
>
> How much money are we talking about? Suppose I want to mount a decent
> defence against a mid-level criminal charge, such as burglary. Will $5K
> do?
>
$15K is more like it. If the prosecutor really wants to get tough,
he's got the whole resources of his well-funded office to throw at a
defendent (think OJ), and the cost could easily go over $100K.
This is one of the major reasons so many people are released from
death row on DNA evidence.
Randolph
David Friedman
johan....@comcast.net wrote:
Our proposal was simply that whatever was being spent on criminal
defense for indigents be available as a voucher that the defendant could
use, if he wished, to hire any attorney who would accept it. We thus
separated the issue of control from the question of how much should be
available.
Daniel R. Reitman
Winston - SSRL Central Computing) wrote:
>>My observation is that they are not in the least
>>overworked, that they spend perhaps an hour a day on
>>their supposed job, if that.
>Have you had much opportunity to observe this in person? (I haven't.
>I know a PD in fandom, Guy H. Lillian III; to hear him tell it, it's
>a much harder job than that. Haven't watched him do it, though.)
If Mr. Donald believes what he is saying, I would like to introduce
him to my friends in the Sales Department of the Bridge Company of
Brooklyn.
Dan, ad nauseam
James A. Donald
> How much money are we talking about? Suppose I want to
> mount a decent defence against a mid-level criminal
For a reasonable defense, against a straightforward
felony charge, a couple of thousand is about right, and
if you are looking to pay substantially less, you will
not get anyone. Public defenders are typically paid
vastly less than this, yet strange to report the job is
eagerly sought after.
If people believe that this is because public defenders
are dedicated, and have a vocation of protecting the
innocent, they none too bright.
David Harmon
Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote,
>Our proposal was simply that whatever was being spent on criminal
>defense for indigents be available as a voucher that the defendant could
>use, if he wished, to hire any attorney who would accept it.
Which would be, if I understand the article, just enough to get the
attorney of your choice to draw up the papers for your guilty plea.
jam...@echeque.com
> > Our proposal was simply that whatever was being
> > spent on criminal defense for indigents be available
> > as a voucher that the defendant could use, if he
> > wished, to hire any attorney who would accept it.
David Harmon wrote:
> Which would be, if I understand the article, just
> enough to get the attorney of your choice to draw up
> the papers for your guilty plea.
Not even that, but that is still one hell of a lot
better than you will get from a public defender.
Obviously, he who pays the piper calls the tune. So if
the accused decides who gets the money, however small
the money, he will still get a tune that is more to his
liking than if someone else decides who gets the money.
Seth Breidbart
How about allowing the defense the same amount the prosecution spends?
If the police catch somebody breaking into a store, the DA's office
isn't going to spend much, so the defense doesn't get much either. If
there's a major investigation, the defense gets a lot.
Sure, there are issues like calculating the DA's cost (police time?),
but the general idea seems fair.
Seth
Karl Johanson
wrote in message news:00A568A2...@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU...
I assume it's like being a teacher, it's a cake walk job, unless you
care about what you're doing.
Karl Johanson
David Friedman
"Karl Johanson" <karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote:
Which makes it more attractive to those who don't care about what they
are doing than to those who do?
Keith F. Lynch
> "Karl Johanson" <karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>> I assume it's like being a teacher, it's a cake walk job, unless
>> you care about what you're doing.
> Which makes it more attractive to those who don't care about what
> they are doing than to those who do?
It's even worse than that. A court-appointed attorney who makes
trouble for the state by attempting to defend his clients will soon
cease being appointed. Just like any other job, you had better keep
your employer happy. And your employer isn't your nominal client;
it's the state.
In some jurisdictions (e.g. Washington, DC) you can even be
permanently disbarred for taking too high a proportion of cases to
trial rather than pleading them out. This happened to a coworker
of mine, which is why he's currently proofreading cases rather than
arguing them.
Keith F. Lynch
> Our proposal was simply that whatever was being spent on criminal
> defense for indigents be available as a voucher that the defendant
> could use, if he wished, to hire any attorney who would accept it.
> We thus separated the issue of control from the question of how much
> should be available.
That's certainly better than the current system. But then almost
anything would be, other than just taking the suspect out back and
shooting him.
For that reason, I'm sure your proposal would never be implemented,
at least not with enough funding to mount a real defense.
mike weber
Keith F. Lynch wrote:
> David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
> > "Karl Johanson" <karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> >> I assume it's like being a teacher, it's a cake walk job, unless
> >> you care about what you're doing.
>
> > Which makes it more attractive to those who don't care about what
> > they are doing than to those who do?
>
> It's even worse than that. A court-appointed attorney who makes
> trouble for the state by attempting to defend his clients will soon
> cease being appointed. Just like any other job, you had better keep
> your employer happy. And your employer isn't your nominal client;
> it's the state.
>
Again, i pose the example of the PD whom i know personally (and have
known for over thirty years), Guy Lillian, who regularly wins acquittal
for his clients, and has no trouble finding work in PD offices in
Louisiana (as long as they have the budget to employ him.)
> In some jurisdictions (e.g. Washington, DC) you can even be
> permanently disbarred for taking too high a proportion of cases to
> trial rather than pleading them out. This happened to a coworker
> of mine, which is why he's currently proofreading cases rather than
> arguing them.
I suspect there must be more of it than that that would violate the
Canons of the National Bar Association.
mike weber
James A. Donald wrote:
> johan....@comcast.net wrote:
> > How much money are we talking about? Suppose I want to
> > mount a decent defence against a mid-level criminal
> > charge, such as burglary. Will $5K do.
>
> For a reasonable defense, against a straightforward
> felony charge, a couple of thousand is about right, and
> if you are looking to pay substantially less, you will
> not get anyone. Public defenders are typically paid
> vastly less than this, yet strange to report the job is
> eagerly sought after.
>
> If people believe that this is because public defenders
> are dedicated, and have a vocation of protecting the
> innocent, they none too bright.
Again, fact, not allegations, please. So long as you are insulting the
intelligence of people who -- possibly from personal knowledge -- hold
a different opinion from yours without evincing any evidence to support
your position, you are the one who sounds "none too bright".
(The PDs i have personal knowledge of are not paid on a piecework
basis, as you imply, but are on salary.)
So far, all you have given us is the usual "libertarian" mantra,
"lawyers are evil venial bastards who pretend to help people but al
they want is money..." The sort of thing that people who think "Let's
kill al the lawyers" t-shirts are clever political humour hold as a
matter of faith.
Keith F. Lynch
>> dedicated, and have a vocation of protecting the innocent, they
>> none too bright.
> Again, fact, not allegations, please. So long as you are insulting
> the intelligence of people who -- possibly from personal knowledge
> -- hold a different opinion from yours without evincing any evidence
> to support your position, you are the one who sounds "none too
> bright".
Perhaps James also has personal knowledge. I know I do. And I agree
with him.
> (The PDs i have personal knowledge of are not paid on a piecework
> basis, as you imply, but are on salary.)
Not in Virginia. At the time of my false conviction, 29 years ago,
I seem to recall they were paid a flat $25 per felony, win or lose.
> So far, all you have given us is the usual "libertarian" mantra,
> "lawyers are evil venial bastards who pretend to help people but
> al they want is money..." The sort of thing that people who think
> "Let's kill al the lawyers" t-shirts are clever political humour
> hold as a matter of faith.
I don't know any libertarians who have said that. Nor has anyone said
anything like that in this thread.
There are lots of different kinds of lawyers. I have a lot of respect
for some of them. If I were allowed, I would take the bar exam and
become one myself -- I believe I could pass.
Some are attracted to earning small amounts of money per felony, win
or lose. Those few tend to people who either process large numbers of
cases very quickly, or who have found a way to live on far less than
minimum wage and who have also found a way to repeatedly annoy their
employer without getting fired. I don't think it's much a stretch to
assume that most of those few are in the first category.
I don't recall what state you live in. Unless it's a state which
either has very few plea bargains or almost never arrests innocent
people, I find it very difficult to believe things are significantly
different there.
Marilee J. Layman
wrote:
>mike weber <fairp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> (The PDs i have personal knowledge of are not paid on a piecework
>> basis, as you imply, but are on salary.)
>
>Not in Virginia. At the time of my false conviction, 29 years ago,
>I seem to recall they were paid a flat $25 per felony, win or lose.
In VA, many are regular lawyers who are assigned to PD by a judge more
or less randomly, which means they get flat rate, not salary.
--
Marilee J. Layman
http://mjlayman.livejournal.com/
David Friedman
"mike weber" <fairp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> (The PDs i have personal knowledge of are not paid on a piecework
> basis, as you imply, but are on salary.)
Both systems exist. Public Defenders are typically on salary. Court
appointed lawyers are, I think, usually paid by the case.
> So far, all you have given us is the usual "libertarian" mantra,
> "lawyers are evil venial bastards who pretend to help people but al
> they want is money..."
I find it odd that you label "all they want is the money" as a
"libertarian mantra." In my experience, libertarians are routinely
accused of being in favor of people doing things for money.
Daniel R. Reitman
wrote:
>. . . .
>In some jurisdictions (e.g. Washington, DC) you can even be
>permanently disbarred for taking too high a proportion of cases to
>trial rather than pleading them out. This happened to a coworker
>of mine, which is why he's currently proofreading cases rather than
>arguing them.
Cite, please!
Dan, ad nauseam
James A. Donald
> > For a reasonable defense, against a straightforward
> > felony charge, a couple of thousand is about right,
> > and if you are looking to pay substantially less,
> > you will not get anyone. Public defenders are
> > typically paid vastly less than this, yet strange to
> > report the job is eagerly sought after.
> >
> > If people believe that this is because public
> > defenders are dedicated, and have a vocation of
> > protecting the innocent, they none too bright.
"mike weber"
> Again, fact, not allegations, please. So long as you
> are insulting the intelligence of people who --
> possibly from personal knowledge -- hold a different
> opinion from yours without evincing any evidence to
> support your position, you are the one who sounds
> "none too bright".
>
> (The PDs i have personal knowledge of are not paid on
> a piecework basis, as you imply, but are on salary.)
It does not matter whether they are paid piecework or as
a full time job. Some are, some are not. But either
way if they actually did the job, it would be a
remarkably unattractive job - not to mention that it is
not in the interests of their employer that they do the
work that they are theoretically hired to do.
> So far, all you have given us is the usual
> "libertarian" mantra, "lawyers are evil venial
> bastards who pretend to help people but al they want
> is money...
Not at all. Lawyers deserve to be paid for doing their
jobs, and that is what lawyers who are paid by their
clients do. Public defenders, however, are paid for not
doing their jobs.
James A. Donald
> Again, i pose the example of the PD whom i know
> personally (and have known for over thirty years), Guy
> Lillian, who regularly wins acquittal for his clients
Can you tell us how many of his clients have been
acquitted?
Can you give us any examples of one his clients being
acquitted?
mike weber
James A. Donald wrote:
> It does not matter whether they are paid piecework or as
> a full time job. Some are, some are not. But either
> way if they actually did the job, it would be a
> remarkably unattractive job - not to mention that it is
> not in the interests of their employer that they do the
> work that they are theoretically hired to do.
>
> > So far, all you have given us is the usual
> > "libertarian" mantra, "lawyers are evil venial
> > bastards who pretend to help people but al they want
> > is money...
>
> Not at all. Lawyers deserve to be paid for doing their
> jobs, and that is what lawyers who are paid by their
> clients do. Public defenders, however, are paid for not
> doing their jobs
So, in other words, you apparently have no actual facts to evince, just
your conviction that anyone who would do such a job must venal, and
your belief that PDs are actively discouraged from actually defending
their clients.
I thought as much.
NEXT!
mike weber
David Friedman wrote
> I find it odd that you label "all they want is the money" as a
> "libertarian mantra." In my experience, libertarians are routinely
> accused of being in favor of people doing things for money.
A lot of the people i've heard this mantra most vigourously and
poisonously from have either self-identified as libertarian, or have
sounded like large-mouthed libertarians to me. (As opposed to
small-mouthed libertarians, with whom i have very few problems, even if
i think they're ridsiculously optimistic.)
Local/nationally syndicated talk radio jock, Neal Boortz, himself a
non-practising lawyer (was in mainly property and sports agenting when
he was in practice) certainly makes noises like i described whenever he
talks abouit trial lawyers...
(I meant "for money obtained through fraud or coercion", not "money
honestly earned".)
mike weber
James A. Donald wrote:
> "mike weber"
> > Again, i pose the example of the PD whom i know
> > personally (and have known for over thirty years), Guy
> > Lillian, who regularly wins acquittal for his clients
>
> Can you tell us how many of his clients have been
> acquitted?
>
> Can you give us any examples of one his clients being
> acquitted?
Good question. I just dropped him an e-mail.
I do know that he regularly discusses cases won and cases lost in his
bi-monthly SFPAzine.
(('m looking through the [incomplete] online archive's of Guy's zine,
"Challenger" -- www.challzine.com:))
I find:
Guy's account of one case, in which he worked his tail off and got a
second-degree murder charge down to a misdemeanor with a max sentence
of less time than the defendant had spent in jail awaiting trial is
here. (http://www.challzine.net/21/21neverspeech.html). No, it wasn't
an acquittal, but it was better than felony time and the loss of her
children.
Ummmph -- that's all i can find in "Chall"... When i hear from Guy,
i'll update.
David Friedman
"mike weber" <fairp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Not at all. Lawyers deserve to be paid for doing their
> > jobs, and that is what lawyers who are paid by their
> > clients do. Public defenders, however, are paid for not
> > doing their jobs
>
> So, in other words, you apparently have no actual facts to evince, just
> your conviction that anyone who would do such a job must venal, and
> your belief that PDs are actively discouraged from actually defending
> their clients.
He has a pretty straightforward argument, whether or not he has any
data.
In (I think) a majority of all felony cases in the U.S., the defendant's
attorney is selected and paid by the plaintiff--since the plaintiff in
the criminal case is the state. We generally believe that who pays the
piper calls the tune--that if X selects and pays Y to do a job, Y has a
strong incentive to do the job in the way X wants it done. Since the
major effort of the state in a criminal case is to convict the
defendant, it's a natural conjecture that public defenders and court
appointed attorneys go along with that objective.
You--or someone in the discussion--have offered one piece of anecdotal
evidence to the contrary, an attorney doing such work who is believed to
do his best for defendants. That's one more piece of evidence than James
has offered--but there is quite a lot of evidence he could offer.
I mentioned earlier a scandal in a midwestern state--I'm pretty sure you
can find it referenced in my piece with Steve Schulhofer, but it's long
enough ago that I no longer remember the details. My wife points out
that the book _Actual Innocence_, which is about DNA exonerations, goes
into some detail as to how the initial convictions occurred, and that in
many of the cases the court provided defense attorney was at fault.
My guess is that your anecdotal evidence is true, and that there are
other cases of public defenders who really are committed to getting
their "clients" the best deal they can. My guess also is that they are
the exception, not the rule--for the reason sketched above.
James A. Donald
> > I find it odd that you label "all they want is the
> > money" as a "libertarian mantra." In my experience,
> > libertarians are routinely accused of being in favor
> > of people doing things for money.
"mike weber"
> A lot of the people i've heard this mantra most
> vigourously and poisonously from have either
> self-identified as libertarian
I don't believe you.
> or have sounded like large-mouthed libertarians to me
You obviously have no idea of what libertarians believe,
or what libertarians are like, therefore your judgment
of who is a libertarian is unlikely to be reliable.
James A. Donald
> > > Again, i pose the example of the PD whom i know
> > > personally (and have known for over thirty years),
> > > Guy Lillian, who regularly wins acquittal for his
> > > clients
James A. Donald:
> > Can you tell us how many of his clients have been
> > acquitted?
> >
> > Can you give us any examples of one his clients
> > being acquitted?
"mike weber"
> Guy's account of one case, in which he worked his tail
> off and got a second-degree murder charge down to a
> misdemeanor with a max sentence
But that is not actually winning a case: Chances are
the prosecutor actually only suspected a misdemeanor,
and the murder charge was just a bargaining chip.
Standard operating procedure is that prosecutors
threaten to charge indigents with the entire contents of
the police blotter, in order that the accused will plead
guilty to something that somewhat resembles what the
police suspect the indigent actually did.
To actually "win" your friend has to take the case to
trial, and get his client off - which I doubt has ever
happened.
Paul Ciszek
In article <rj5582te6v2mgih8e...@4ax.com>,
James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>David Friedman
>> > I find it odd that you label "all they want is the
>> > money" as a "libertarian mantra." In my experience,
>> > libertarians are routinely accused of being in favor
>> > of people doing things for money.
>
>"mike weber"
>> A lot of the people i've heard this mantra most
>> vigourously and poisonously from have either
>> self-identified as libertarian
>
>I don't believe you.
>
>> or have sounded like large-mouthed libertarians to me
>
>You obviously have no idea of what libertarians believe,
And you need to attend a cookout where some "large-mouthed" variety
libertarians get a few beers in them and hold forth.
>or what libertarians are like, therefore your judgment
>of who is a libertarian is unlikely to be reliable.
Oh, there is no question of who the "large-mouthed" libertarians are.
They'll let you know.
--
Please reply to: | "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is
pciszek at panix dot com | indistinguishable from malice."
Autoreply is disabled |
Keith F. Lynch
> Oh, there is no question of who the "large-mouthed" libertarians
> are. They'll let you know.
Am I a large-mouthed libertarian, a small-mouthed libertarian, or not
a libertarian at all?
Keith F. Lynch
> So, in other words, you apparently have no actual facts to evince,
> just your conviction that anyone who would do such a job must venal,
> and your belief that PDs are actively discouraged from actually
> defending their clients.
> I thought as much.
> NEXT!
Next? That would be me. I don't know what experience James may have,
but I have first-hand experience with a court-appointed attorney, and
my experience agrees with what James says.
I also have plenty of second-hand experience via various books.
David Friedman already mentioned _Actual Innocence_ by Barry Scheck,
Peter Neufeld, and Jim Dwyer. I would add _Adams v. Texas_ by
Randall Adams, _Witch Hunt_ by Kathryn Lyon, _Presumed Guilty_ by
Martin Yant, _Convicting the Innocent_ by Donald S. Connery, _In
Spite of Innocence_ by Michael L. Radelet, Hugo Adam Bedau, and
Constance E. Putnam, _Until Proven Innocent_ by Arthur J. Harris,
_Circumstantial Evidence_ by Pete Early, _Mockery of Justice_ by
Cynthia L. Cooper and Sam Reese Sheppard, _The Wrong Man_ by Kevin
Davis, _Mean Justice_ by Edward Humes, _Victims of Justice_ by Thomas
Frisbie and Randy Garrett, _A Promise of Justice: The Eighteen-Year
Fight to Save Four Innocent Men_ by David Protess, Rob Warden, and
Robert Warden, _Bloodsworth_ by Kirk Bloodsworth, the magazine
_Justice: Denied_, and numerous other books, magazines, documentaries,
and websites.
On your side, if I understand you correctly, you've got one person who
claims to be an honest, hard-working, court-appointed attorney. Even
if he's telling the truth, he's just one man.
Just to be clear, I'm not casting aspersions on defense attorneys
in private practice, only on the ones that are paid by the state to
process immense numbers of defendants in short amounts of time for
low wages.
Keith F. Lynch
> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>> In some jurisdictions (e.g. Washington, DC) you can even be
>> permanently disbarred for taking too high a proportion of cases to
>> trial rather than pleading them out. This happened to a coworker
>> of mine, which is why he's currently proofreading cases rather than
>> arguing them.
> Cite, please!
I have an undated clipping from a _Superior Court Watch_ article by
Stephanie Mencimer, titled "The Lawyer Who Wouldn't Cop a Plea," which
was provided me by the former attorney in question. It doesn't appear
to be online, at least not anywhere Google can find.
Daniel R. Reitman
<dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>In (I think) a majority of all felony cases in the U.S., the defendant's
>attorney is selected and paid by the plaintiff--since the plaintiff in
>the criminal case is the state. We generally believe that who pays the
>piper calls the tune--that if X selects and pays Y to do a job, Y has a
>strong incentive to do the job in the way X wants it done. Since the
>major effort of the state in a criminal case is to convict the
>defendant, it's a natural conjecture that public defenders and court
>appointed attorneys go along with that objective.
>. . . .
By that argument, one could make the same assertions about the court.
I think that would be an overstatement, to say the least. (Don't say
it, Keith. We know what your position is.)
>My guess is that your anecdotal evidence is true, and that there are
>other cases of public defenders who really are committed to getting
>their "clients" the best deal they can. My guess also is that they are
>the exception, not the rule--for the reason sketched above.
The general consensus in Oregon and Washington is that the public
defense bar is doing the job properly. In Oregon, however, the
defense is at a disadvantage because of a trend toward prosecutorial
overcharging since mandatory minimums were enacted in the '90s.
Dan, ad nauseam
Daniel R. Reitman
wrote:
>Daniel R. Reitman <drei...@spiritone.com> wrote:
>> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>>> In some jurisdictions (e.g. Washington, DC) you can even be
>>> permanently disbarred for taking too high a proportion of cases to
>>> trial rather than pleading them out. This happened to a coworker
>>> of mine, which is why he's currently proofreading cases rather than
>>> arguing them.
>> Cite, please!
>I have an undated clipping from a _Superior Court Watch_ article by
>Stephanie Mencimer, titled "The Lawyer Who Wouldn't Cop a Plea," which
>was provided me by the former attorney in question. It doesn't appear
>to be online, at least not anywhere Google can find.
Please provide the state and the name of the lawyer. We can probably
find the case with a bit of searching.
Dan, ad nauseam
David Harmon
<k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote,
>I also have plenty of second-hand experience via various books.
Does anybody else remember _The Court of Last Resort_ by Earl
Stanley Gardner? (famous for Perry Mason) The first that
I read of the "investigate wrongful convictions, get innocent
prisoner released" books that are all over the place these days.
jam...@echeque.com
David Friedman
> > In (I think) a majority of all felony cases in the
> > U.S., the defendant's attorney is selected and paid
> > by the plaintiff--since the plaintiff in the
> > criminal case is the state. We generally believe
> > that who pays the piper calls the tune--that if X
> > selects and pays Y to do a job, Y has a strong
> > incentive to do the job in the way X wants it done.
> > Since the major effort of the state in a criminal
> > case is to convict the defendant, it's a natural
> > conjecture that public defenders and court appointed
> > attorneys go along with that objective.
Daniel R. Reitman wrote:
> By that argument, one could make the same assertions
> about the court.
And, indeed, it is obviously true about the courts.
When the state seeks to convict the innocent, as Janet
Reno did, the courts invariably give full cooperation.
They are not an independent check on the police and
prosecutors, but the prosecution's right hand.
Consider, for example, how the courts gave Janet Reno a
free ride in the child molestation cases, cheerfully
setting aside centuries of precedent on what constitutes
acceptable evidence, merrily accepting testimony
secretively extorted from witnesses not subject to cross
examination, until the public outcry became too great.
Consider, for example, the courts acquiescence in Rico.
The legislators declared that since the evil mafias were
so powerful, so successful in intimidating witnesses,
that lower standards of evidence were required when
prosecuting mafias: hearsay and guilt by association.
Needless to say, prosecutors eagerly started applying
Rico to all sorts of cases where there was no likelyhood
of the accused intimidating witnesses, and conspicuous
and obvious intimidation of witnesses by the
prosecution, and the courts rolled over like a puppy
begging for its tummy to be tickled.
James A. Donald
> The general consensus in Oregon and Washington is that
> the public defense bar is doing the job properly.
People always have the highest opinion of that branch
of government that they deal with the least.
Always, the consensus among people who do not have to
deal with a branch of government is that that branch of
government is doing its job properly. The consensus
among those defended by the public defender is that they
are just playing the good cop / bad cop scam - that the
public defender is there to do you harm.
Similarly, the consensus among those who do not have to
deal with the FDA is that it is a public spirited agency
made very necessary by all the peddlers of quack cures,
whereas the consensus among those who have to get drugs
past them is that they are corrupt and brutally indifferent to
human lives.
Keith F. Lynch
> Please provide the state and the name of the lawyer. We can
> probably find the case with a bit of searching.
Answered in email.
Keith F. Lynch
> they are just playing the good cop / bad cop scam - that the public
> defender is there to do you harm.
Unfortunately, many don't realize this until too late.
mike weber
James A. Donald wrote:
> To actually "win" your friend has to take the case to
> trial, and get his client off - which I doubt has ever
> happened.
it has -- i just don't have nay on-line cites and i don't have nay of
his dead-tree zines to research.
There are some other people who lurk/contribute here who i know have
read Guy's stories and can confirm what i say.
mike weber
James A. Donald wrote:
> David Friedman
> > > I find it odd that you label "all they want is the
> > > money" as a "libertarian mantra." In my experience,
> > > libertarians are routinely accused of being in favor
> > > of people doing things for money.
>
> "mike weber"
> > A lot of the people i've heard this mantra most
> > vigourously and poisonously from have either
> > self-identified as libertarian
>
> I don't believe you.
>
Your flat "I don't believe you" in response to statement the veracity
of which you can have no knowledge, without asking for cites,
demonstrates either intellectual laziness or an unwillingness to engage
in actual discussion, in which, just possibly you might find that the
other fellow actually has fact to back him up...
Neal Boortz, a lawyer himself (when he talks about trial lwayers) and a
keynote speaker at the LP convention here in Atlanta (thought there was
a campaign to get him kicked off the program because he supported
Bush's war).
> > or have sounded like large-mouthed libertarians to me
>
> You obviously have no idea of what libertarians believe,
> or what libertarians are like, therefore your judgment
> of who is a libertarian is unlikely to be reliable.
Ummm, i have known/met/talked/argued with several of the LP and other
national libertarian theoreticians, know (second-hand, through
libertarian mutual friends including Brad Linaweaver) a LP member who
ran successfully for local office, and have read (giggleing
occasionally) vbarious national livertarian p[ublications.
I strongly suspect (but will not flatly say so) that i know more about
libertariand and libertarianism than you do about Public Defenders,
based on your unsupported allegations.
Nancy Lebovitz
mike weber <fairp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>So far, all you have given us is the usual "libertarian" mantra,
>"lawyers are evil venial bastards who pretend to help people but al
>kill al the lawyers" t-shirts are clever political humour hold as a
>matter of faith.
There are a lot of people (many more than there are libertarians) who
have a reflexive hatred of lawyers. Afaik, while an assumption of greed
comes into it, the major underlying premise seems to be that lawyers
reliably make life worse.
OBSFMovie: Jurassic Park.
Anti-OBSFNovel: _Accelerando_.
Justtobefairbuttonslogan: If you think lawyers are funny, the next time
you're arrested, hire a comedian.
Habitualdepressingbutnocourseofactionsuggestedthought: It's a bad thing
when some largish proportion of people can't afford to use the justice
system.
--
Nancy Lebovitz http://www.nancybuttons.com
http://livejournal.com/users/nancylebov
My two favorite colors are "Oooooh" and "SHINY!".
James A. Donald
> > > A lot of the people i've heard this mantra most
> > > vigourously and poisonously from have either
> > > self-identified as libertarian
James A. Donald
> > I don't believe you.
"mike weber"
> Your flat "I don't believe you" in response to
> statement the veracity of which you can have no
> knowledge,
I know what libertarians say and think. You are lying
about what they say and think.
The libertarian position is that people are primarily
motivated by what is good for themselves, and that they
should be - that in private enterprise, the individual's
self interest is generally in the direction of doing
what is right
Paul Ciszek
In article <e5v4p5$mfv$1...@panix3.panix.com>,
Keith F. Lynch <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>> Oh, there is no question of who the "large-mouthed" libertarians
>> are. They'll let you know.
>
>Am I a large-mouthed libertarian, a small-mouthed libertarian, or not
>a libertarian at all?
I have yet to read you talking out of both sides of your mouth,
so you must not be *that* large-mouthed of a libertarian. ;-)
Paul Ciszek
In article <2tc882lit8th3i6s1...@4ax.com>,
>motivated by what is good for themselves, and that they
>should be - that in private enterprise, the individual's
>self interest is generally in the direction of doing
>what is right
I thought the libertarian position was that the government
should not do (X), for nearly all (Keith would say all) values
of (X).
It is those "libertarians" who make exceptions for (X) equal
to torture, domestic spying, elective invasions, or holding
citizens prisoner without trial that I have a problem with.
Paul Ciszek
In article <e61f82$oho$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
Paul Ciszek <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>In article <e5v4p5$mfv$1...@panix3.panix.com>,
>Keith F. Lynch <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>>Paul Ciszek <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>> Oh, there is no question of who the "large-mouthed" libertarians
>>> are. They'll let you know.
>>
>>Am I a large-mouthed libertarian, a small-mouthed libertarian, or not
>>a libertarian at all?
>
>I have yet to read you talking out of both sides of your mouth,
>so you must not be *that* large-mouthed of a libertarian. ;-)
Seriously, to expand a bit, your posted statements have been consistent
although extreme. So far as I can tell, anarchism is technically within
the "set" of libertarianism. The only real contradiction I have seen
so far in your postings is the idea that the speed of road traffic should
be reduced, yet the government should cease to exist. I just don't see
both of those things happening--if the roads go private, the provider
with the highest speed limit will be the most popular and will put all
the others out of business.
Compared to those who want the government off our backs except to spy
on us and torture people, that's hardly what I would call hypocritical.
Paul Ciszek
In article <e61937$nte$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
Nancy Lebovitz <nan...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>There are a lot of people (many more than there are libertarians) who
>have a reflexive hatred of lawyers. Afaik, while an assumption of greed
>comes into it, the major underlying premise seems to be that lawyers
>reliably make life worse.
>
>OBSFMovie: Jurassic Park.
>
>Anti-OBSFNovel: _Accelerando_.
>
>Justtobefairbuttonslogan: If you think lawyers are funny, the next time
>you're arrested, hire a comedian.
>
>Habitualdepressingbutnocourseofactionsuggestedthought: It's a bad thing
>when some largish proportion of people can't afford to use the justice
>system.
People blame lawyers for the disappearance of diving boards from swimming
pools, jungle gyms from playgrounds, nice hot coffee from fast food
outlets, any *real* chemicals from chemistry sets, and the restriction of
access to all sorts of natural wonders and public places. (I visited the
monument to the Green Mountain Boys in Vermont; I am told that the view
from the top is particularly impressive, but I will never see it. :-( )
A cow orker says that the blame for starting this particular avalanche
can be laid on the sholders of Melvin Belli. The depiction of him in
the Star Trek episode "And the Children Shall Lead" is hideously ironic.
"The Universe shall be ours to play in!"
Nancy Lebovitz
Paul Ciszek <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>In article <2tc882lit8th3i6s1...@4ax.com>,
>James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>>
>>The libertarian position is that people are primarily
>>motivated by what is good for themselves, and that they
>>should be - that in private enterprise, the individual's
>>self interest is generally in the direction of doing
>>what is right
>
>I thought the libertarian position was that the government
>should not do (X), for nearly all (Keith would say all) values
>of (X).
>
>It is those "libertarians" who make exceptions for (X) equal
>to torture, domestic spying, elective invasions, or holding
>citizens prisoner without trial that I have a problem with.
Do you want to include the "libertarians" who want immigration
restrictions?
Peter Meilinger
> "mike weber"
> > > > A lot of the people i've heard this mantra most
> > > > vigourously and poisonously from have either
> > > > self-identified as libertarian
>
> James A. Donald
> > > I don't believe you.
>
> "mike weber"
> > Your flat "I don't believe you" in response to
> > statement the veracity of which you can have no
> > knowledge,
>
> I know what libertarians say and think. You are lying
> about what they say and think.
Is there any particular reason you went straight to
accusations of dishonesty rather than focusing
on the "self-identified as libertarian" part? I mean,
isn't it possible that the people espousing these
views and identifying themselves as libertarians
aren't what you would consider "real" libertarians?
Or is it impossible to claim to be a libertarian
is you don't actually agree with some sort of
holy writ on the subject, so the only possibility
is that Mike must've been lying?
Pete
Paul Ciszek
In article <e61o46$kda$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
Nancy Lebovitz <nan...@panix.com> wrote:
>In article <e61fi9$b27$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
>Paul Ciszek <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>>In article <2tc882lit8th3i6s1...@4ax.com>,
>>James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>The libertarian position is that people are primarily
>>>motivated by what is good for themselves, and that they
>>>should be - that in private enterprise, the individual's
>>>self interest is generally in the direction of doing
>>>what is right
>>
>>I thought the libertarian position was that the government
>>should not do (X), for nearly all (Keith would say all) values
>>of (X).
>>
>>It is those "libertarians" who make exceptions for (X) equal
>>to torture, domestic spying, elective invasions, or holding
>>citizens prisoner without trial that I have a problem with.
>
>Do you want to include the "libertarians" who want immigration
>restrictions?
First of all, I should probably clarify something:
A "libertarian" who justifies domestic spying, imprisonment
without trial, etc. is a hypocrite. Anyone libertarian or
otherwise who justifies torture is a complete and utter asshole.
The overlap between the set of all hypocrites and the set
of all complete and utter assholes is considerable, but
neither is a proper subset of the other.
That said, I do see a fundamental difference between trying to
prevent people from leaving (i.e., a prison) and trying to prevent
people from entering (i.e., a country club).
A libertarian could make the case that the latter falls under their
limited set of things the government is allowed to do--border
defense--claiming that it does not abridge the rights of *citizens*,
and not be a hypocrite. And if they advocated doing so in a humane
fashion, they need not be an asshole either.
Now, arresting and imprisoning a citizen who brings water to someone
dying in the desert, as some have proposed, would most definately
be a violation of basic liberties of that citizen as well as an
indication that one is a complete and utter asshole.
David Friedman
nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
> The only real contradiction I have seen
> so far in your postings is the idea that the speed of road traffic should
> be reduced, yet the government should cease to exist. I just don't see
> both of those things happening--if the roads go private, the provider
> with the highest speed limit will be the most popular and will put all
> the others out of business.
Not if high speed limits result in more accidents, and the customers of
the private roads care more about that than about being able to drive
fast.
Randolph Fritz
> In article <e61g3q$2ua$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
> nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
>
>> The only real contradiction I have seen
>> so far in your postings is the idea that the speed of road traffic should
>> be reduced, yet the government should cease to exist. I just don't see
>> both of those things happening--if the roads go private, the provider
>> with the highest speed limit will be the most popular and will put all
>> the others out of business.
>
> Not if high speed limits result in more accidents, and the customers of
> the private roads care more about that than about being able to drive
> fast.
>
I see no indication that most drivers in fact do care about that;
mostly drivers in the USA seem to rely on intuition about safe speeds,
and those are wrong distressingly often.
Randolph
David Friedman
nan...@panix.com (Nancy Lebovitz) wrote:
> There are a lot of people (many more than there are libertarians) who
> have a reflexive hatred of lawyers. Afaik, while an assumption of greed
> comes into it, the major underlying premise seems to be that lawyers
> reliably make life worse.
There's at least one obvious reason for it. A lot of what lawyers do,
and the most visible part, involves supporting one side in a conflict.
If you have a good heart surgeon, that doesn't make me more likely to
die. But if you have a good lawyer and are suing me, it does make me
more likely to lose.
When a court case is happening, it looks a lot like a zero sum
game--negative sum if you include legal costs. If I spend an extra
$50,000 on my lawyers and you do the same, and the effects cancel out in
terms of the case outcome, the society as a whole is about $100,000
poorer. That isn't true for education, or medical expenses, or most
other highly paid professions. It is, arguably, true for political
campaign expenses--and they also are unpopular.
Mark Atwood
>
> I see no indication that most drivers in fact do care about that;
> mostly drivers in the USA seem to rely on intuition about safe speeds,
> and those are wrong distressingly often.
Your own intuitions as to the best tradeoffs between cost, safety,
time, and other factors, of course, always correct.
--
Mark Atwood When you do things right, people won't be sure
m...@mark.atwood.name you've done anything at all.
http://mark.atwood.name/ http://fallenpegasus.livejournal.com/
Paul Ciszek
In article <slrne88vk9....@panix2.panix.com>,
Randolph Fritz <rand...@panix.com> wrote:
>On 2006-06-05, David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>> In article <e61g3q$2ua$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
>> nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
>>
>>> The only real contradiction I have seen
>>> so far in your postings is the idea that the speed of road traffic should
>>> be reduced, yet the government should cease to exist. I just don't see
>>> both of those things happening--if the roads go private, the provider
>>> with the highest speed limit will be the most popular and will put all
>>> the others out of business.
>>
>> Not if high speed limits result in more accidents, and the customers of
>> the private roads care more about that than about being able to drive
>> fast.
>>
>
>I see no indication that most drivers in fact do care about that;
Indeed, they "vote with their feet".
Consider this: There is nothing stopping American motorists from
driving at a more reasonable speed *now*, if they wanted to. Sure,
some highways have a minimum speed, but I never seen one faster than
40mph.
Aaron Denney
>
> In article <slrne88vk9....@panix2.panix.com>,
> Randolph Fritz <rand...@panix.com> wrote:
>>On 2006-06-05, David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>>> In article <e61g3q$2ua$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
>>> nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
>>>
>>>> The only real contradiction I have seen
>>>> so far in your postings is the idea that the speed of road traffic should
>>>> be reduced, yet the government should cease to exist. I just don't see
>>>> both of those things happening--if the roads go private, the provider
>>>> with the highest speed limit will be the most popular and will put all
>>>> the others out of business.
>>>
>>> Not if high speed limits result in more accidents, and the customers of
>>> the private roads care more about that than about being able to drive
>>> fast.
>>>
>>
>>I see no indication that most drivers in fact do care about that;
>
> Indeed, they "vote with their feet".
>
> Consider this: There is nothing stopping American motorists from
> driving at a more reasonable speed *now*, if they wanted to. Sure,
> some highways have a minimum speed, but I never seen one faster than
> 40mph.
65 in a section of I-40 outside Albuquerque.
--
Aaron Denney
-><-
Keith F. Lynch
>> faster than 40mph.
> 65 in a section of I-40 outside Albuquerque.
65 miles per hour is the *minimum* allowed speed on that highway? A
few years ago, that was more than the *maximum* allowed speed on any
highway in the US. Aren't there plenty of cars and trucks that can't
go 65, at least not uphill?
Keith F. Lynch
> David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>> nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
>>> The only real contradiction I have seen so far in your postings is
>>> the idea that the speed of road traffic should be reduced, yet the
>>> government should cease to exist. I just don't see both of those
>>> things happening--if the roads go private, the provider with the
>>> highest speed limit will be the most popular and will put all the
>>> others out of business.
>> Not if high speed limits result in more accidents, and the
>> customers of the private roads care more about that than about
>> being able to drive fast.
> I see no indication that most drivers in fact do care about that;
> mostly drivers in the USA seem to rely on intuition about safe
> speeds, and those are wrong distressingly often.
If it's true that the government represents the people, why are the
speed limits what they are rather than being higher?
I expect that in the absence of government, there will be far less
driving, at any speed. Most driving takes place today only because
there are frequently no good alternatives. Government perversely
acts to subsidize driving and suppress faster, safer, less expensive
alternatives. The average person should no more have to drive their
own car than have to generate their own electricity, grow their own
food, or sew their own clothes. Some people enjoy doing such things,
but most just want to get places, and to have electricity, food, and
clothing.
I have no strong opinions on speeds on limited access superhighways.
My concern is for speeds on residential streets and other places
where pedestrians and cyclists are present.
If you assume some kind of non-governmental court system, any road
company whose high speed limits result in large numbers of severely
injured pedestrians would quickly be sued into bankruptcy.
James A. Donald
> >The libertarian position is that people are primarily
> >motivated by what is good for themselves, and that
> >they should be - that in private enterprise, the
> >individual's self interest is generally in the
> >direction of doing what is right
Paul Ciszek
> I thought the libertarian position was that the
> government should not do (X), for nearly all (Keith
> would say all) values of (X).
There is, however, a reason the government should not do
X.
And the reason is that if someone does X for himself, or
pays one of multiple competing providers to provide X,
he will have an interest that X is done well, done cost
effectively, that the right amount of X will be done,
and the ability to make this happen.
Government, however, has no reason to do X efficiently,
or do the correct amount of X, and so generally will
not.
Thus the libertarian position is based on the rightness
and virtue of self interest, even among those
libertarians who do not go all the way with Ayn Rand's
egoism.
Therefore, you are never going to hear libertarians
giving the rant that mike weber attributes to them.
> It is those "libertarians" who make exceptions for (X)
> equal to torture, domestic spying, elective invasions,
> or holding citizens prisoner without trial that I have
> a problem with.
As with most government enterprises, we are paying too
much for violence, there are too many people on the
payroll, and we are not getting enough violence
produced. If private enterprise were doing this
operation, we would have Prince Abdalah bin Abd al-Aziz
Al Saud's head nailed to the Kaaba with nine inch nails
at a cost vastly lower than the current Iraq operation.
Keith F. Lynch
> Nancy Lebovitz <nan...@panix.com> wrote:
>> Justtobefairbuttonslogan: If you think lawyers are funny, the next
>> time you're arrested, hire a comedian.
I have seen no criticism of lawyers as a class here. I have seen --
and made -- criticism of lawyers who pretend to defend while actually
working to harm their supposed client.
>> Habitualdepressingbutnocourseofactionsuggestedthought: It's a bad
>> thing when some largish proportion of people can't afford to use
>> the justice system.
Yes, especially when they're not even allowed to opt out. If you have
been wronged, but can't afford to sue whoever's responsible, at least
you're free to do nothing. That's better than being hauled into court
against your will and systematically coerced and lied to in order to
get you to act against your interests.
> People blame lawyers for the disappearance of diving boards from
> swimming pools, jungle gyms from playgrounds, nice hot coffee from
> fast food outlets, any *real* chemicals from chemistry sets, and
> the restriction of access to all sorts of natural wonders and
> public places.
They should blame jurors, not lawyers.
Bill Patterson
> > I thought the libertarian position was that the
> > government should not do (X), for nearly all (Keith
> > would say all) values of (X).
Strictly speaking, aside from the NeoCons and traditional conservatives
masquerading as libertarians these days, "the government" doing thus
and so is only coincidentally a libertarian position -- or rather, that
kind of statement comes about because of other factors.
The libertarian position is that all social arrangements should be
consentual. Period. Full stop. I suppose that in theory even
anarchist libertarians could be brought to support a government
activity that was undertaken with the affirmative consent of all the
individuals affected. The unacceptable qualities of a state would not
necessarily come into play -- though an anarchist would probably also
object that trusting the State to not bring its force into play is a
mug's game . . .
Keith F. Lynch
> I suppose that in theory even anarchist libertarians could be
> brought to support a government activity that was undertaken
> with the affirmative consent of all the individuals affected.
Sure, but then why call the organization a government, rather than
a corporation or a social club?
What makes a governments and criminal gangs different from other
kinds of organizations is their use of coercion. What distinguishes
governments from criminal gangs is that the former have territory,
and the latter do not.
Most people quite rightly regard criminal gangs as bad things. Most
people seem to regard at least some governments as good things. But
the only difference is whether they control territory. What's so
praiseworthy about controlling territory? And what's so blameworthy
about not controlling territory?
David Dyer-Bennet
> Aaron Denney <wno...@ofb.net> wrote:
> > Paul Ciszek <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >> Sure, some highways have a minimum speed, but I never seen one
> >> faster than 40mph.
>
> > 65 in a section of I-40 outside Albuquerque.
>
> 65 miles per hour is the *minimum* allowed speed on that highway? A
> few years ago, that was more than the *maximum* allowed speed on any
> highway in the US. Aren't there plenty of cars and trucks that can't
> go 65, at least not uphill?
"Plenty" is pretty vague, but basically -- no. A 1960s VW microbus
with a 40HP motor can generally make 65, and you don't get much more
underpowered than that. Also remember that it's one section of
highway; they probably didn't post a steep slope with that high a
minimum ("steep" by Interstate standards).
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd...@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
Karl Johanson
news:e62lkd$k5n$1...@panix2.panix.com...
> Bill Patterson <WHPat...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I suppose that in theory even anarchist libertarians could be
>> brought to support a government activity that was undertaken
>> with the affirmative consent of all the individuals affected.
>
> Sure, but then why call the organization a government, rather than
> a corporation or a social club?
>
> What makes a governments and criminal gangs different from other
> kinds of organizations is their use of coercion. What distinguishes
> governments from criminal gangs is that the former have territory,
> and the latter do not.
>
> Most people quite rightly regard criminal gangs as bad things. Most
> people seem to regard at least some governments as good things. But
> the only difference is whether they control territory. What's so
> praiseworthy about controlling territory? And what's so blameworthy
> about not controlling territory?
Governments, while no where near perfect, have helped me have education,
electricity, communications, water, medical care, sewer systems,
transportation, garbage pick-up, mail delivery, etc. Organized crime has
helped me with... no wait, don't tell me...
Karl Johanson
David Dyer-Bennet
> Randolph Fritz <rand...@panix.com> wrote:
> > David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
> >> nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
> >>> The only real contradiction I have seen so far in your postings is
> >>> the idea that the speed of road traffic should be reduced, yet the
> >>> government should cease to exist. I just don't see both of those
> >>> things happening--if the roads go private, the provider with the
> >>> highest speed limit will be the most popular and will put all the
> >>> others out of business.
>
> >> Not if high speed limits result in more accidents, and the
> >> customers of the private roads care more about that than about
> >> being able to drive fast.
>
> > I see no indication that most drivers in fact do care about that;
> > mostly drivers in the USA seem to rely on intuition about safe
> > speeds, and those are wrong distressingly often.
>
> If it's true that the government represents the people, why are the
> speed limits what they are rather than being higher?
Because the people who care most strongly want the lower limits; the
people who want higher limits don't make it a high priority, partly
because they often just ignore the limit.
> I expect that in the absence of government, there will be far less
> driving, at any speed. Most driving takes place today only because
> there are frequently no good alternatives. Government perversely
> acts to subsidize driving and suppress faster, safer, less expensive
> alternatives. The average person should no more have to drive their
> own car than have to generate their own electricity, grow their own
> food, or sew their own clothes. Some people enjoy doing such things,
> but most just want to get places, and to have electricity, food, and
> clothing.
You can suspect what you want, but all the alternatives to highways
and roads for local transit are running at a loss, propped up by the
government. The government subsidy of cars is very minor in
comparison (each time we have this fight the numbers get refined a
bit, but seems like the auto fees and taxes come very close to, but
don't quite, cover the cost of the road building, maintenance, and
policing).
> I have no strong opinions on speeds on limited access superhighways.
> My concern is for speeds on residential streets and other places
> where pedestrians and cyclists are present.
I see the aftermath of some amazing accidents; cars in position I
don't understand how they could get into if driving at any vaguely
sane speed. And I don't see that many people driving at insane speeds
on surface streets. So I'm puzzled how many of the accidents come
about. Presumably a large proportion of the people driving that fast
have them.
> If you assume some kind of non-governmental court system, any road
> company whose high speed limits result in large numbers of severely
> injured pedestrians would quickly be sued into bankruptcy.
Unless of course agreeing not to do so was an eforcable part of the
contract entered into by using the road.
David Dyer-Bennet
> Bill Patterson <WHPat...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I suppose that in theory even anarchist libertarians could be
> > brought to support a government activity that was undertaken
> > with the affirmative consent of all the individuals affected.
>
> Sure, but then why call the organization a government, rather than
> a corporation or a social club?
>
> What makes a governments and criminal gangs different from other
> kinds of organizations is their use of coercion. What distinguishes
> governments from criminal gangs is that the former have territory,
> and the latter do not.
Oh, man, Keith. Do *NOT* go into the wrong part of *any* big city and
tell the gang members that they do not have territory!
And in many Libertarian models, there will be private security
companies whose *business* is to apply coercion for their clients.
> Most people quite rightly regard criminal gangs as bad things. Most
> people seem to regard at least some governments as good things. But
> the only difference is whether they control territory. What's so
> praiseworthy about controlling territory? And what's so blameworthy
> about not controlling territory?
Deriving their just power from the consent of the governed. What, you
expected unanimous agreement?
Keith F. Lynch
> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>> The average person should no more have to drive their own car than
>> have to generate their own electricity, grow their own food, or sew
>> their own clothes. Some people enjoy doing such things, but most
>> just want to get places, and to have electricity, food, and clothing.
> Lots of people think that driving is fun.
And some don't. Why should those who don't be forced to do it anyway?
It's one thing to drive on a scenic open road during good weather on
the occasional lazy Sunday afternoon, and quite another to commute
every single day, morning and evening, in good weather and bad, in
consistently heavy stop-and-go traffic. Maybe there's someone who
enjoys the latter, but if so I haven't met them.
James A. Donald
James A. Donald
> > I know what libertarians say and think. You [mike
> > weber] are lying about what they say and think.
"Peter Meilinger"
> Is there any particular reason you went straight to
> accusations of dishonesty rather than focusing on the
> "self-identified as libertarian" part?
Many people who claim to be libertarians have positions
that other libertarians would disagree with, but faith
in the efficacy and rightness of self interest is
universal - there are variations in the degree of that
faith, but the variation is from high to very high.
Further, Mike Weber was projecting upon me a position I
did not take - which is a pretty good indication he was
projecting the same position on others.
I know I did not say it, nor say anything that would
lead him to believe I said it. Therefore when he claims
to have heard others saying it, he is no more to be
believed than when he says I said it.
His position is a misunderstanding in that when I say
"self interest" he hears me say "evil", and his position
is a lie in that he is rejecting the proposition that
self interest is a sound and just basis for society, by
wilfully and dishonestly denying that anyone holds that
position, a tactic analogous to Chomsky's rhetorical
trick in "the case of the missing bloodbath".
> I mean, isn't it possible that the people espousing
> these views and identifying themselves as libertarians
> aren't what you would consider "real" libertarians? Or
> is it impossible to claim to be a libertarian is you
> don't actually agree with some sort of holy writ on
> the subject, so the only possibility is that Mike
> must've been lying?
Many libertarians hold views I don't agree with: David
Friedman wants to balance the budget, some else wants
the borders closed, someone else wants a confiscatory
tax on land, but I simply have never encountered self
described libertarians that hold the views mike weber
ascribes to libertarians.
Mike Weber's perception of reality is self serving, in
that it attributes to libertarians views that if they
held, would lead to Mike Weber's conclusions, not the
conclusions that libertarians tend to hold.
Nancy Lebovitz
Keith F. Lynch <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>> Nancy Lebovitz <nan...@panix.com> wrote:
>>> Justtobefairbuttonslogan: If you think lawyers are funny, the next
>>> time you're arrested, hire a comedian.
>
>I have seen no criticism of lawyers as a class here. I have seen --
>and made -- criticism of lawyers who pretend to defend while actually
>working to harm their supposed client.
I was talking about the hatred of lawyers generally seen in the culture,
not necessarily just about what's posted here.
Keith F. Lynch
> I see the aftermath of some amazing accidents; cars in position I
> don't understand how they could get into if driving at any vaguely
> sane speed. And I don't see that many people driving at insane
> speeds on surface streets. So I'm puzzled how many of the accidents
> come about. Presumably a large proportion of the people driving
> that fast have them.
In the paper the other day I saw a car-sized hole in the side of a
building a couple stories up. I wish someone had made a video of
how that had happened.
> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>> If you assume some kind of non-governmental court system, any road
>> company whose high speed limits result in large numbers of severely
>> injured pedestrians would quickly be sued into bankruptcy.
> Unless of course agreeing not to do so was an eforcable part of the
> contract entered into by using the road.
I wouldn't say that a pedestrian simply crossing the road, a
pedestrian who would prefer the road wasn't even there, is "using" it
in any meaningful sense. Especially not if he regularly walked that
same route before the road was built.
Keith F. Lynch
> Governments, while no where near perfect, have helped me have
> education, electricity, communications, water, medical care, sewer
> systems, transportation, garbage pick-up, mail delivery, etc.
What makes you think those wouldn't have been provided with better
quality at lower price without government?
Government-provided "education" taught me exactly what to do if I were
ever to be falsely accused of a crime. I followed that advice, and
as a result the government got to rack up another "success" in the
courtroom. No doubt they then turned around and looked at my clean
record in the 29 years since then, and counted me as a "success" at
rehabilitation, too!
It also taught me that exercise is inevitably boring and painful.
It took me even longer to unlearn that lesson.
Electricity, communications, medical care, and garbage pick-up are not
primarily government functions here, and as a result work much better.
Government is a racket, built on lies and coercion. It's the biggest
criminal conspiracy in history.
Keith F. Lynch
> Deriving their just power from the consent of the governed.
That would be a little more persuasive if everyone were allowed to
vote, if voting machines weren't closed-source black boxes, and if
one of the choices on the ballot were "none of the above."
Even if the majority were to give consent -- even if the majority were
to give *informed* consent -- democracy is still two lions and a sheep
voting on what's for lunch.
David Dyer-Bennet
> Karl Johanson <karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> > "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> >> The average person should no more have to drive their own car than
> >> have to generate their own electricity, grow their own food, or sew
> >> their own clothes. Some people enjoy doing such things, but most
> >> just want to get places, and to have electricity, food, and clothing.
>
> > Lots of people think that driving is fun.
>
> And some don't. Why should those who don't be forced to do it anyway?
>
> It's one thing to drive on a scenic open road during good weather on
> the occasional lazy Sunday afternoon, and quite another to commute
> every single day, morning and evening, in good weather and bad, in
> consistently heavy stop-and-go traffic. Maybe there's someone who
> enjoys the latter, but if so I haven't met them.
A very high proportion of people prefer driving half an hour in their
own car, with the heat or air set where they prefer, playing the music
or radio they choose, to spending an hour rubbing elbows with
strangers on a crowded, dirty, hot, noisy public conveyance of some
sort.
David Dyer-Bennet
> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
> > I see the aftermath of some amazing accidents; cars in position I
> > don't understand how they could get into if driving at any vaguely
> > sane speed. And I don't see that many people driving at insane
> > speeds on surface streets. So I'm puzzled how many of the accidents
> > come about. Presumably a large proportion of the people driving
> > that fast have them.
>
> In the paper the other day I saw a car-sized hole in the side of a
> building a couple stories up. I wish someone had made a video of
> how that had happened.
When there's enough energy involved, parts of cartoon physics actually
work.
> > "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> >> If you assume some kind of non-governmental court system, any road
> >> company whose high speed limits result in large numbers of severely
> >> injured pedestrians would quickly be sued into bankruptcy.
>
> > Unless of course agreeing not to do so was an eforcable part of the
> > contract entered into by using the road.
>
> I wouldn't say that a pedestrian simply crossing the road, a
> pedestrian who would prefer the road wasn't even there, is "using" it
> in any meaningful sense. Especially not if he regularly walked that
> same route before the road was built.
However, the owner of the property the road is on would almost
certainly require such an agreement as a precondition of allowing the
pedestrian to be on his property at all.
Keith F. Lynch
> A very high proportion of people prefer driving half an hour in
> their own car, with the heat or air set where they prefer, playing
> the music or radio they choose, to spending an hour rubbing elbows
> with strangers on a crowded, dirty, hot, noisy public conveyance of
> some sort.
Yes, as I said, they just want to get somewhere. And they do so by
obtaining and driving their own car, not because they particularly
enjoy driving, but because government has largely supressed all the
more sensible alternatives.
Keith F. Lynch
> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>> I wouldn't say that a pedestrian simply crossing the road, a
>> pedestrian who would prefer the road wasn't even there, is "using"
>> it in any meaningful sense. Especially not if he regularly walked
>> that same route before the road was built.
> However, the owner of the property the road is on would almost
> certainly require such an agreement as a precondition of allowing
> the pedestrian to be on his property at all.
That's not how property works. If people have traveled a particular
route for decades, that makes it an irrevocable public right of way.
(This ancient common-sense rule is frequently violated by governments,
of course.) Would you argue that someone can hold you prisoner on
your own land by buying up land on all sides of you and forbidding
you to cross?
Paul Ciszek
In article <87k67vf...@gw.dd-b.net>,
David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:
>
>> 65 miles per hour is the *minimum* allowed speed on that highway? A
>> few years ago, that was more than the *maximum* allowed speed on any
>> highway in the US. Aren't there plenty of cars and trucks that can't
>> go 65, at least not uphill?
>
>"Plenty" is pretty vague, but basically -- no. A 1960s VW microbus
>with a 40HP motor can generally make 65, and you don't get much more
>underpowered than that. Also remember that it's one section of
>highway; they probably didn't post a steep slope with that high a
>minimum ("steep" by Interstate standards).
Is 65 the minimum for all lanes in that section of highway?
David Dyer-Bennet
> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
> > "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> >> I wouldn't say that a pedestrian simply crossing the road, a
> >> pedestrian who would prefer the road wasn't even there, is "using"
> >> it in any meaningful sense. Especially not if he regularly walked
> >> that same route before the road was built.
>
> > However, the owner of the property the road is on would almost
> > certainly require such an agreement as a precondition of allowing
> > the pedestrian to be on his property at all.
>
> That's not how property works. If people have traveled a particular
> route for decades, that makes it an irrevocable public right of way.
> (This ancient common-sense rule is frequently violated by governments,
> of course.) Would you argue that someone can hold you prisoner on
> your own land by buying up land on all sides of you and forbidding
> you to cross?
Luckily, the state prevents that from happening by owning the roads
and the alleys.
As for establishing right-of-ways, that's an ancient rule imposed by
governments, somewhat inconsistently over the years. Without
governments, it wouldn't work that I can see.
Aaron Denney
> Aaron Denney <wno...@ofb.net> wrote:
>> Paul Ciszek <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>> Sure, some highways have a minimum speed, but I never seen one
>>> faster than 40mph.
>
>> 65 in a section of I-40 outside Albuquerque.
>
> 65 miles per hour is the *minimum* allowed speed on that highway? A
> few years ago, that was more than the *maximum* allowed speed on any
> highway in the US. Aren't there plenty of cars and trucks that can't
> go 65, at least not uphill?
It's perfectly flat. And I was recalling incorrectly: the right hand
lane has no (posted) minimum.
Aaron Denney
>
> In article <87k67vf...@gw.dd-b.net>,
> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>>"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:
>>
>>> 65 miles per hour is the *minimum* allowed speed on that highway? A
>>> few years ago, that was more than the *maximum* allowed speed on any
>>> highway in the US. Aren't there plenty of cars and trucks that can't
>>> go 65, at least not uphill?
>>
>>"Plenty" is pretty vague, but basically -- no. A 1960s VW microbus
>>with a 40HP motor can generally make 65, and you don't get much more
>>underpowered than that. Also remember that it's one section of
>>highway; they probably didn't post a steep slope with that high a
>>minimum ("steep" by Interstate standards).
>
> Is 65 the minimum for all lanes in that section of highway?
No, not the right-hand lane.
Keith F. Lynch
> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> writes:
>> That's not how property works. If people have traveled a
>> particular route for decades, that makes it an irrevocable public
>> right of way. (This ancient common-sense rule is frequently
>> violated by governments, of course.) Would you argue that someone
>> can hold you prisoner on your own land by buying up land on all
>> sides of you and forbidding you to cross?
> Luckily, the state prevents that from happening by owning the roads
> and the alleys.
There are plenty of properties that's aren't on any road or alley.
> As for establishing right-of-ways, that's an ancient rule imposed
> by governments, somewhat inconsistently over the years. Without
> governments, it wouldn't work that I can see.
You're begging the question. You might as well assert that without
governments we'd all be slowly tortured and eaten by cannibal hordes,
therefor we should all be extremely grateful to governments no matter
what, short of that, they do to us.
Aaron Denney
> James A. Donald
>> >The libertarian position is that people are primarily
>> >motivated by what is good for themselves, and that
>> >they should be - that in private enterprise, the
>> >individual's self interest is generally in the
>> >direction of doing what is right
>
> Paul Ciszek
>> I thought the libertarian position was that the
>> government should not do (X), for nearly all (Keith
>> would say all) values of (X).
>
> There is, however, a reason the government should not do
> X.
>
> And the reason is that if someone does X for himself, or
> pays one of multiple competing providers to provide X,
> he will have an interest that X is done well, done cost
> effectively, that the right amount of X will be done,
> and the ability to make this happen.
That is one particular justification of Libertarianism, yes.
It's not the only one.
Keith F. Lynch
> It's perfectly flat.
Erosion must be a lot faster than I thought. When I last visited the
area around Albuquerque, four years ago, on a train to the Worldcon,
it was quite mountainous.
Aaron Denney
>> It's perfectly flat.
>
> Erosion must be a lot faster than I thought. When I last visited the
> area around Albuquerque, four years ago, on a train to the Worldcon,
> it was quite mountainous.
It's mountainous, but there are flat mesa-like areas. This is probably
~ 50 miles to the West of Albuquerque proper.
(Okay, okay, I shouldn't have said "perfectly". But it was a perfectly
innocent mistake.)
Daniel R. Reitman
wrote:
>Daniel R. Reitman <drei...@spiritone.com> wrote:
>> Please provide the state and the name of the lawyer. We can
>> probably find the case with a bit of searching.
>Answered in email.
After reviewing the information provided, I located cites to two
cases, In re Stanton, 470 A2d 272 (DC App 1983) and In re Stanton, 470
A2d 280 (DC App 1983). Although these opinions are not accessible
online on free servers, I did locate an opinion from the DC Bar Board
of Professional Responsibility in 2003, recommending against approving
an application for reinstatement. The 2003 opinion quotes the two
earlier opinions. http://tinyurl.com/l7glt
The facts are that Stanton was not disbarred. He was, however,
suspended for 366 days for violations in four cases. Two cases
involved neglecting his obligations to his clients. The other two
involved his overruling clients' decisions to plea-bargain. In other
words, this is not simply "taking too many cases to trial," as Keith
argued. It was disregarding direct instructions from the clients not
to take the cases to trial.
Stanton has applied for reinstatement at least five times since his
suspension was completed. He has been rejected every time, at least
up through 2003. It appears that his failure to recognize his
mistakes is a substantial factor.
Dan, ad nauseam
Mark Atwood
>
> A very high proportion of people prefer driving half an hour in their
> own car, with the heat or air set where they prefer, playing the music
> or radio they choose, to spending an hour rubbing elbows with
> strangers on a crowded, dirty, hot, noisy public conveyance of some
> sort.
http://mark.atwood.name/lj/20060605-ridethebus.gif
--
Mark Atwood When you do things right, people won't be sure
m...@mark.atwood.name you've done anything at all.
http://mark.atwood.name/ http://fallenpegasus.livejournal.com/
Karl Johanson
news:e62ntt$q1c$1...@panix2.panix.com...
> Karl Johanson <karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>>> The average person should no more have to drive their own car than
>>> have to generate their own electricity, grow their own food, or sew
>>> their own clothes. Some people enjoy doing such things, but most
>>> just want to get places, and to have electricity, food, and
>>> clothing.
>
>> Lots of people think that driving is fun.
>
> And some don't. Why should those who don't be forced to do it anyway?
I don't recall suggesting I think they should. I commented on your
point.
> It's one thing to drive on a scenic open road during good weather on
> the occasional lazy Sunday afternoon, and quite another to commute
> every single day, morning and evening, in good weather and bad, in
> consistently heavy stop-and-go traffic. Maybe there's someone who
> enjoys the latter, but if so I haven't met them.
Say hi to me at Worldcon & you will have. Well, for some levels of
'heavy', and I usually only drive to one of my jobs 5 days a week & do
the other at home most days of the week. We got a metre of snow here
overnight a few years back. I didn't drive in it.
Karl Johanson
Karl Johanson
news:e62qbo$7k7$1...@panix2.panix.com...
> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>> A very high proportion of people prefer driving half an hour in
>> their own car, with the heat or air set where they prefer, playing
>> the music or radio they choose, to spending an hour rubbing elbows
>> with strangers on a crowded, dirty, hot, noisy public conveyance of
>> some sort.
>
> Yes, as I said, they just want to get somewhere. And they do so by
> obtaining and driving their own car, not because they particularly
> enjoy driving, but because government has largely supressed all the
> more sensible alternatives.
Along with the 200 MPG carborator.
Here in Victoria we have
-Public transit diesel & hybrid buses, some with bike racks.
-Sidewalks (modified for easier use by people in motorized or hand
powered wheelchairs).
-Bike lanes (also used by skateboarders & roller bladders). I've seen
stand up scooters used on the roads & bike lanes (haven't seen a Segway
though).
-Water taxis.
-The roads used by cars are also used by motor bikes and sit down
scooters.
-The roads are also used by taxis (motorized & bicycle propelled).
-Horse drawn carriages.
-The major city near here has grid connected electric buses, a light
rapid transit system and commuter ferries.
Karl Johanson
Paul Ciszek
In article <e62jkf$cqc$1...@panix2.panix.com>,
Keith F. Lynch <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>
>If it's true that the government represents the people, why are the
>speed limits what they are rather than being higher?
The government does not represent the people. I thought you of
all people knew that.
>If you assume some kind of non-governmental court system, any road
>company whose high speed limits result in large numbers of severely
>injured pedestrians would quickly be sued into bankruptcy.
How would lawsuits be enforced in such a system? If the defendant
said "I do not require the services of your court system, thank you"
and the court enacted its decisions on them anyway, wouldn't it be
in effect a government court?
David Friedman
"Karl Johanson" <karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> Governments, while no where near perfect, have helped me have education,
> electricity, communications, water, medical care, sewer systems,
> transportation, garbage pick-up, mail delivery, etc.
Dubious in many of those cases.
The government long made private post offices illegal--still does,
although UPS and Fedex have found loopholes--and prosecuted those who
delivered the mail in competition with the government. A single change
in government policy--the Peltzman amendments to the Pure Food and Drug
Act--appears to have cut in half the rate of introduction of new medical
drugs, with no observable effect on average quality thereof. The
government provides schooling so poorly that, over a twenty year period,
it managed to double the real per pupil expenditure while sharply
lowering the quality of schooling provided.
I don't know enough about the relevant history of some of the others.
But where government either makes some activity a legal monopoly--the
post office--or heavily subsidizes it, with the result that most of it
is produced by the government, it's rash to conclude that without
government involvement it wouldn't be produced or would be produced in
lower quantity or quality.
--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of _Harald_, a fantasy without magic.
Published by Baen, in bookstores now
David Friedman
David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
> You can suspect what you want, but all the alternatives to highways
> and roads for local transit are running at a loss, propped up by the
> government.
Jitneys were an alternative, not to roads, but to private automobile
use, and were regulated out of existence early in the 20th century. The
classic article is by Hilton and Eckert--I can get you the cite if you
need it.
David Friedman
nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
> How would lawsuits be enforced in such a system? If the defendant
> said "I do not require the services of your court system, thank you"
> and the court enacted its decisions on them anyway, wouldn't it be
> in effect a government court?
>
You can find one fairly detailed answer in a chapter in a book of mine;
the chapter is webbed at:
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/Machinery_of_Freedom/MofF_Chapt
er_29.html