h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Just something that occured to me on the education debate, I thought it was probably better to start a new thread than run off on some tangent. The best and the brightest go into law because it pays a lot.

We live in a capitalist society, whereby the ideal is to reward people based on how much they contribute to society. We use money to keep track of who is contributing and (in theory) the people who have jobs that contribute more get more money and are allowed to spend it to reap the benefits of others contributions.

In theory our legal system works because we have two experts in the law, lawyers to argue for and against each proposal. By having a differnt lawyer argue for each side we avoid a lot of bias problems. For example if a lawyer made his mind up about a case before it began and he was presenting evidence for both sides he might leave out the majority of evidence for the side he did not favour.

However there are vast differences between how much different lawyers are paid. So does this mean that it is considered more of a contribution to society to argue for one side over the other. That it decided before each case that it is better for society if a certain side wins (for example this decision may be based on how much money each side has) Or is it the case that not all lawyers are equal and that you could take one case and give it to two hypothetical lawyers - one of whom would lose the case, but the other would be capable of winning it. Even then is it considered a greater contribution to society to be better than the other lawyer than it is to match him?

Either way points to injustice in the legal system. Yet my law studying amigo insists that this is one of the finest legal systems around and that you couldn't possibly come up with anything better.

Do people agree with this line of reasoning or have I gone horribly wrong? Can anyone think of a better way to run it without decisions becoming arbitary or inconsistent? Any other thoughts?

Of course, it's worth pointing out that few lawyers work with money as their *sole* motivation. Public defenders, immigration lawyers, even government lawyers -- these groups tend to make considerably less money than lawyers on average. And yet, the majority seem to be in those positions by choice, not by default. Yes, money may be *one* of the motivations for these folks, but it's clearly not the only one -- they're also motivated by a need to help out the underdog, to see justice done, to make the world better or safer.

And even for a top private criminal defense lawyer, again, money isn't the only motivator -- these guys are well known for taking on cases pro bono at times. Sometimes it's because they have an emotional investment in the outcome of the case, sometimes it's because they see a chance to be in the spotlight.

And of course, with two different sides of any case being argued, the person who is the best possible lawyer for one side is almost never going to be the best possible lawyer for the other side. It's not like you have both sides of the table competing with their cash for the same pool of lawyers.

And of course, for any type of lawyer, it's not like they get paid a different rate depending on how "right" or "wrong" the client is.

Capitalism has never been about rewarding people by the measure of their contribution. It's about supply and demand, and always has been. Tax lawyers can charge $500/hr because there are plenty of people out there who will pay that. On the other hand, with injury lawyers here in the US, the supply exceeds the demand -- which is why a) they aggressively compete for clients, b) they encourage people to file lawsuits who wouldn't have normally, and c) the clients don't pay any up front fees.


Mikey

I wasn't talking about motivation, I'm sure there are plenty of lawyers who do not work for the money, in fact without them my argument falls down. What I was getting at is that in order to have a balanced legal system we need to have equally skilled lawyers on each side. Their purpose is to present evidence in terms of precedents, something which us laymen do not have the knowladge to do so. However the fact that there are differnt pay scales suggests that the lawyers are doing something more for their money which is affecting the outcome of the case. However the right and wrong of any case is determined before the courts open i.e. either she killed the guy or she didn't, either he deserves comphensation or he doesn't - what the outcome *should* be is the same however the evidence is presented, but what the outcome *is* changes based on this. I was highlighting the lawyers salary because it demonstrates how blatantly we will admit that a layers job is not so much to put forward the evidence as it is to change the outcome. You can change a persons answer in court to a question by changing one word in a question you ask them a week in advance. (e.g. Loftus & Palmer, I forget the date) This is manipulation and has nothing to do with even application of the law.

I agree that the law of supply and demand applies to capitalism (Also to other govt. forms depending on the situation) it explains a lot of the transactions which take place but thats not the be all and end all of the ideal.

The idea is the more money you pay the more researchers you get, the better quality arguements then turn up, the precedents or exceptions they find.

You also get a more eloquent silk.

In other words the more money you've got the better quality justice you get.

Justice may be blind, but those scales are for weighing your purse.

I think your argument is flawed because you begin with an assumption, that "the ideal is to reward people based on how much they contribute to society".

If that were true, nurses would get paid more than advertising executives.

I think the aim is to pay people based on what their value is perceived to be by the people who pay them.

I have always said that the ideal is to pay people based upon how much they contribute to society, but the reality is that we pay them based upon how much they are percived to contribute.

I have always thought that capitalism would be a fantasticly efficient way to run a country if only public services, advertising and inheritance didn't exist.

The peoblem with nurses in particlar is that a true capitalist soceity doesn't provide any public serives, you can only get what you pay for. People in private healthcare can get paid in proportion to the help that they recieve. I'm not saying that this is a good thing, just that it is the way that a capitalism would run most efficeiently. A surival of the fittest for people who are useful so to speak.

I don't think that there is one way of deciding the way people are paid. It's different for every proffession, depending on training, and supply and demand, and to some extent tradition.

Why tradition? 'We'll do that because thats the way we've always done it' has never been a particularly usefull argument.

If a certain proffession or trade has been paid more in the past because of the market conditions in the past then it's going to be very difficult to make a cut in the pay when the conditions change.

Hmmm...

How much would you pay someone to save your life ?

How much would you pay someone to keep you out of jail ?

How much would you pay someone to educate your children ?

How much would you pay someone to mend your car ?

How much would you pay someone to decorate your living room ?

How much would you pay someone to re-design your bedroom ?