Specifically in the USA, but feel free to share your status quo. We live in the internet age, doesn’t that cut overhead with filing and make things cheaper?
Because it was made by the rich for the rich.
Exactly. If you can’t afford an expensive lawyer, the US wants you to lose.
Actually, it’s not only that they want you to lose. It wants the entire system to be so expensive that you can’t even afford to go to court and lose. You have to settle, and don’t have a lot of power determining the terms.
Your best bet as a member of the 95% is a class action suit. The problem is that “enterprising” members of the 1% will take most of the winnings from your class action suit for representing you against other members of the 1%. No matter what, even if you win as a poor person in the American legal system, you’ve still lost
I have personal experience in this. once had a small business, where a 1%er approached me with the biggest order I’d ever received. before I started we had to negotiate the price, and sign a contract. they agreed on $60k as the price of their order. then they added to the order, despite me telling them it was inadvisable. so they eventually racked up closer to $100k of services. I wasn’t silly, I got 20k upfront so I actually had enough money to make this order possible.
then, after months of work, I’m about to finish, so I hand them the final bill, which was about $80k. they said no. I bent over backwards trying to find a reasonable price, offered as much as a 70% discount if they would just pay and fuck off. nope. they offered 10k. Went to a bunch of lawyers with our signed contract that had the price negotiated and asked what my options were.
you know what every single one of them said?
“Too rich to sue.”
“sure, you could sue, they would extend the suit out for probably a decade, and then even after all the heartache, headache, and legal bills, even if I won they still wouldn’t pay. because they’re rich enough to not have anything in their name. it’s all in their wives names, some other company.”
“you cannot win.”
it’s a group of rich, entitled, evil people that our society is catered to providing for, and the other 99% are the ones subsidizing their lives.
The term “banana republic” was invented for latin american countries, where companies like Chiqita had a ridiculous amount of political power, because they were the sole driving force behind the entire country’s economy. These companies (often banana, but could be any resource) had so much power that they pocketed and corrupted the entire system. They removed farmers, forests, civilians, politicians, competition, villages, anything that stood in their way, they just moved it out of their way, the easy way or the easier way. They could do whatever they wanted, because they pretty much were the government. (Fun fact: This led to massive monocultures and the virtual extinction of the Gros Michel banana)
It originaly applied to latin american countries, but it can apply anywere. It also doesn’t have to be one particular company who controls the government, it can be a bunch of them.
You forgot the part where those companies where backed up by United Fruit, keeping South America under the rule of the USA. Good old US freedom, I guess.
Chiquita == United Fruit Co.
Thanks, I didn’t know that
That’s revolting, and would make me lose faith in humanity. What would you do differently today, if you were offered a similar order? Other than refusing, that is.
Not that guy but I’d probably ask for everything upfront.
This story sounds very familiar. Was it for a certain casino owned by a certain well known individual?
no, but surprise, surprise, this one was a BIG big fan of that certain well known individual.
Of course if the lawyers lose they don’t make a single cent and have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars.
This point can’t be understated. A main feature of a developed economy is a strong legal system, meant to handle business and property disputes. A strong legal system protects investments.
For example, Iran is a country with a ridiculous amount of natural resources, yet their primary exports are nuts and rugs. This is becuase they don’t have a great legal system (and also they have the dubious honour of being the most sanctioned country in the world). Their government does what they want, when they want. If that means they jail you and seize all your assets on some made up grounds, then that’s what happens. The legal systems in developed nations is designed to prevent this from happening. That’s why it exists.
So what you’re saying is … legal systems are designed to protect the rich.
Yes but with arguments to back up my point so I don’t just sound like an angry teenager on reddit.
Ah, somehow it came off like you were saying the general population was the intended recipient of such benefits
And thus the question becomes how we can craft a fairer legal system that isn’t so pay-to-win, but still maintains the core principles of property rights that allows business to, ya know, happen. Sure we could do what many naïve people on the internet want and seize the means of production, but who on earth would want to start a productive business or make productive investments in a country where the government can just up and seize your assets without justification? Just as we need protection against businesses screwing us over, we also need protection against government screwing us over. Anyone who says we should just seize assets and nationalize industries willy nilly should ask themselves if they wanna risk some ghoul like Ron DeSantis being the one with the power to do that.
As to actual answers on how to make such a system that isn’t pay-to-win but still maintains a stable system and rule of law, I don’t actually know. I’m no expert in the legal system. But I’m sure there are experts out there who have spent a lot of time thinking about these sorts of questions and have ideas on how to improve/reform.
Sure we could do what many naïve people on the internet want and seize the means of production, but who on earth would want to start a productive business or make productive investments in a country where the government can just up and seize your assets without justification?
That’s why you don’t create a legal system where “the government can just up and seize your assets without justification”. You create a system where it is clearly defined when it becomes acceptable to socialize a company, and what forms of organization and management it is going to take, and what compensation is the entrepreneur entitled to in exchange.
The right wing fears governments and the left wing fears corporations but really it’s ALL metahuman entities that are suspect and should be regarded as predatory until they can show otherwise.
deleted by creator
It’s because most of the regulations are also made by the rich. Look up regulatory capture.
deleted by creator
There are some good answers here, but I would also note that because the legal system is adversarial, continued investment can go a long way towards a desired outcome. If you can afford a parade of experts, huge amounts of gathered evidence, and contingency plans researched and prepared by dozens of lawyers and paralegals, you’ll do better in court.
It’s an arms race, so the “best” lawyers have spent the most on arms. That also means that even the worst lawyers have to invest a lot to keep up.
Absolutely right, but the added subtext is so that rich people win against poor people.
It’s designed that way. It was on purpose.deleted by creator
In Germany, it works like this:
Everybody has to observe the laws, therefore it must be possible for everybody to go to court etc. It cannot be that you need to be rich first, before you can sue anybody.
So our first ‘level’ of courts do not require that you have a lawyer in civil cases. You do not need to write things in ‘legalese’ language (of course it makes things easier if you do), instead you can simply walk to court and say I need to sue that person for this and that. They would write it down and start proceedings.
Only court of appeals etc. require a lawyer. In criminal cases the court would provide a lawyer if required.
Lawyers cannot decide their rates freely, but need to adhere to a kind of tariff system. So, getting rich just because you are a lawyer is somewhat difficult :-)
Most of that is similar to my understanding of the US system, except the last bit. We do have public defenders (state appointed lawyers) that are provided if needed, and I think lawyers are required to do a certain number of cases as a public defender per year, or something similar (but it can be avoided somehow I can’t remember). If you’re picking your lawyer on your own, then rates can be literally anything.
Like any subject matter that is complex it requires someone to have specialized training to understand and navigate. We all have a working understanding of the legal system, but sometimes we need expert opinion. Few people are willing/able to master the subject matter so supply relative to demand is low.
The legal system is complex because our world is complex. We are constantly expanding human endeavors (Space law wasn’t an issue until Sputnik) and changing current laws (Marijuana laws have changed in many states). It’s not just a matter of learning the law once - it is constantly changing and requires an expert to be always up-to-date.
You’re paying $.25 for the piece of paper and $199.75 for the lawyer’s knowledge of how to file it.
In order to be cheaper we would need to flood the market with lawyers. But the number of lawyers is purposely controlled. Image if you regular people had access to lawyers. The chaos. Youd waste all the lawyers time complaining about illegal wage theft and union busting or excessive force. The system works much better when the law protects the people who earned it
brb killing myself
That’s illegal. You’ll need a good lawyer
Because when you need it, you really need it and can’t be too picky about the price. You only have a limited window to shop around.
So the nash equilibrium is the prices are set dear, but not too high to be impossible to pay.
Kinda like hostage healthcare in the USA.
Exactly.
Adam Smith, the father of free market capitalism, favored mostly unregulated free markets.
However, in his definition, if the participants cannot choose not to participate, that is NOT a free market and therefore should be regulated.
I think there are lots of opportunities here. Public defends and prosecutors should get the SAME budget per case. Would really change the rigor and depth of defenses.
Imagine if the accused has the same budget. If we spent as much seeking out innocense as we do on guilt.
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
Of note is the dentistry industry, which is separate from the AMA, and has its own insurance in the U.S.
It’s really weird when you think about it. We have separate insurance for our mouth bones.
Removed by mod
Both are incredibly, unapologetically, corrupt to their core
Citation needed…
Medical insurances charge 500 dollars for aspirin to inflate insurance companies paying for it and the services are just as expensive. Artificial inflation is bad for the services as well as the practitioners and the patients. We have a nation full of people that could have some of the best care in the world but we are gatekeeped by financial bullshit.
Lawyers are liars. Straight up. Any single one I have dealt with representing me or I have opposed has lied in a major way to get what they want. What good is a system built on the fundamentals of the written word to have be more cunning than a four year old to win? It is dishonorable and it takes more effort to outwit a liar than someone with enough minerals to say they are wrong and just eat it.
you’re saying that the legal system is influenced by the capitalist system that defines most other things in economy. If the your demand is higher, then the supply is more expensive? What doesn’t make sense is that, even though inflation and lower supplies can explain other price hikes, the legal system has actually receive technology which should LOWER its priced instead of raising them. All the legal system (in regards to the courts) is about is reading text, writing text, public communication, and/or hearing arguments, which technically can be done in writing through the regular means or with even speech to text for people who don’t want to talk. All of these tools expedite and make the process much cheaper.
This way the law is the same everyone but only the rich can use it to their advantage.
To reasons. One we have made an extremely complex legal system and two, for the same reason actors charge millions. Because they can.
It is made to be inaccessible to the common people. Partially due to avoid excessive overuse, partially (or moreso) so it remains a playground for lawyers and other such people, who are all expensive.
lawyers maintain a high artificial barrier to entry.
Cuz fuck you MURICA, it’s for the rich on purpose
Removed by mod
There are not a lot of incentives to make things easier/cheaper. Changing government processes is slow and hard. Take immigration. It is currently a long and hard process to legally immigrate to US unless you fall into certain categories. I’ve heard politicians on both sides say my entire life that we need to improve the process for legal immigration yet little has been done.
they made an app for asylum seekers in mexico/central america https://www.cbp.gov/about/mobile-apps-directory/cbpone
Overall the legal system isn’t nearly as expensive as people think it is. Most cases can be dealt with for a few hundred dollars or less. Especially small court claims sometimes even prohibits the use of lawyers, so the only cost ist your time + getting a few documents.
But as the complexity of the case increases so does the price. And that’s because you pay for a lot of time of people with specialized knowledge. But that’s true for every profession.
These cases are what people usually talk about. These are the cases that get media attention. No one talks about the small court claims between Bob and John that took 30 minutes.
