this is an argument much like min wage: that it's BETTER for poor people to not be allowed to get X at all (where X is "a job" or "a lawyer") unless it can get one that meets some 3rd party's standard
I'm sympathetic to @WhippleMarc's desire to make a living, but not this arghttps://twitter.com/WhippleMarc/status/1166189576546848768 …
-
Show this thread
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @cypriotjuice @MorlockP
Then that is what you believe and who am I to gainsay you? If you want to run for Congress and pass the Let's Kill All the Lawyers Act of 2021, have at. But do you really want "the same system as now, but run by LegalZoom and Softbank?" Because *that* is what *I* am opposed to.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @WhippleMarc @cypriotjuice
> If you want to run for Congress woah, woah, woah you were arguing in realm of ideas and I joined you in that argument, in that realm. to now say "well, go get elected and pass a law" is an intellectual cop out, at worst, or goal post moving (from "ideas" to "policy") at best
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @MorlockP @cypriotjuice
What started this whole rant was the fact that such policies *are* being implemented - for example, due to intensive lobbying from
#a2J advocates, sometimes astroturfed and sometimes not, rules against non-lawyers participating in the system are being relaxed.1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @WhippleMarc @cypriotjuice
so then the response to me defending such proposals should not be "so run for congress and pass such laws", but should instead be "it's already happening, you should be happy", no ?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MorlockP @cypriotjuice
I wasn't responding to you, I was responding to "I'd rather see the whole legal profession die." Which, fine. Everybody's gotta have goals. But if you're going to respond to "here's why what's happening to the legal profession is bad" with "let's just get rid of it..."
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
...then I submit that what you are really doing is highjacking the argument, and a response along the lines of "fine, then go do what you want, I'm talking about something else" is entirely reasonable.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I don't think I was hijacking the argument, as I responded to your tweet which was about the UTILITY and DESIRABILITY of a rule change with a response about the UTILITY and DESIRABILITY of a rule change. /shrug
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.