HydrogenBond Posted November 15, 2009 Report Share Posted November 15, 2009 If we made a new law, such as nobody can wear the color black on odd days of the month, we could create a new criminal class, where one did not exist before. There is nothing morally or ethically wrong with wearing black on odd days, but still they would be criminals. Most people would just go along with the program to avoid fines, possible jail time or being called a criminal. Others would not see any logical reason for this law and wear black out of protest. But doing that will eventually require legal assistance for protection. From an economic point of view, that law, although silly, would increase the demand for lawyers. In the short terms with supply fixed, cost of lawyers would go up due to the higher demand. But in the longer term, the free market would adjust and increase the supply of lawyers. That silly law would create jobs. Let us do this the other way, say you were a lawyer lobby group wishing to increase the demand for goods and services for you and other lawyers. Based on the above, you would lobby whoever will increase the number of laws. Or if you were a politician and needed to give a kick back to the lawyer lobby for their campaign support, how could you do this and make it look legitimate? Make more laws. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMJones0424 Posted November 15, 2009 Report Share Posted November 15, 2009 You forgot to mention the plethora of special interests that are more than willing to advocate limiting the freedom of various segments of society, as long as they do not view themselves as part of the segment being limited. Finally, allow for the loose interpretation of the written and unwritten traditions designed to prevent this mess. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia It seems simple to me, but I'm not a lawyer! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lawcat Posted November 15, 2009 Report Share Posted November 15, 2009 If we made a new law, such as nobody can wear the color black on odd days of the month, we could create a new criminal class, where one did not exist before. There is nothing morally or ethically wrong with wearing black on odd days, but still they would be criminals. Most people would just go along with the program to avoid fines, possible jail time or being called a criminal. Others would not see any logical reason for this law and wear black out of protest. But doing that will eventually require legal assistance for protection. Isn't it odd that we are allowed to wear black then? From an economic point of view, that law, although silly, would increase the demand for lawyers. In the short terms with supply fixed, cost of lawyers would go up due to the higher demand. But in the longer term, the free market would adjust and increase the supply of lawyers. That silly law would create jobs. So more laws, means increased demand for lawyers? Unremarkable. Let us do this the other way, say you were a lawyer lobby group wishing to increase the demand for goods and services for you and other lawyers. Based on the above, you would lobby whoever will increase the number of laws. Or if you were a politician and needed to give a kick back to the lawyer lobby for their campaign support, how could you do this and make it look legitimate? Make more laws. What increases the demand for lawyers is "enforcement" of the laws, not increase in the number of laws per se. To enforce laws, gov't needs law enforcement personel: police, prosecutors, courts, jails, public defenders, cars, buildings, computers, etc. All that is limited by available labor-hours (manpower and time and money which comes from tax dollars). The justice system is swamped the way it is. Police can not investigate every reported case. Prosecutors can not prosecute every investigated case. Court can not try every prosecuted case. And sometimes, we can not house all of the convicted. http://governingthroughcrime.blogspot.com/2009/02/california-prison-population-ordered.html That's why you can wear color black, and no one cares. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HydrogenBond Posted November 15, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 15, 2009 Another aspect of a capitalist legal system, is one has the option to lease or buy different levels of quality, depending on price. This allows one to get different shakes from the same law depending on what you have to spend. Like any free market product, there are different models with different prices, with higher end models having more capabilities. Marketing can play a role, if one model makes you feel safer. The free market demand for the model distribution can be tweaked based on how strict the law is enforced. With a lose law, one can get by with the less expensive model. It is like buying a basic PC if only surfing the web is stress as the necessity. If we wish to require more demand for higher end models, we simply change the priorities and invest more into the enforcement against wearing black on odd days. The much higher cost of enforcement, has to be paid for. The system has to shake down harder to pay the tab. This assures a skim off the bottom to offset costs, since not everyone can lease the best models to offset the skim. Higher level of enforcement will nevertheless increase the demand for all models. In the short term, with demand higher and supply fixed, the cost goes up for all models. This again allows more skim off the bottom and fills the jails and coffers, since it knocks more out of the market. The higher price will adjust within the free market as the supply of models increases, causing prices to fall. More people can afford to avoid as much skim. This will impact the skim, so the law may need an upgrade, if the skim falls to much to offset enforcement costs. If the private legal system became so efficient and cheaper for all models, sort of like the price and quality of HD-TV's, such that all laws could be circumvented or the punishment abbreviated, this would drastically effect jobs within enforcement. It would have an impact on the size of government. The new shake down would go after this efficiency, i.e., law to increase operating costs, so the skim can be restored to the previous levels. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C1ay Posted November 15, 2009 Report Share Posted November 15, 2009 If we made a new law... Why debate "If"s unless they actually happen? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.