The legal system is captured by legal professionals. The average American is bound by a system that they can't engage directly with. The middlemen who most people must hire to navigate through it generally will not help unless there's a substantial payday in it for them. And in civil matters, defendants have no right to representation.
(Also, the judge is colleagues with counsel, opposing or otherwise; none of them think much of you, which a trip to /r/LawyerTalk will confirm.)
All of this is a choice. Essentially the same choice that we have to have medical insurers instead of a single-payer system; a broken housing market controlled by large corporate interests, instead of one where prices are moderated by a stock of residences built by the government and sold at-cost or lower, as in Singapore or pre-Thatcher Great Britain; broken and spread-thin policing instead of the kind of sophisticated social support system that you would expect the richest country on the planet to be able to afford (and avoids sending the same armed ex-jock to domestic disturbances, mental health crises, car accidents, public school security, etc.). My suspicion is that the fight against change in any of these cases is so fierce because breaking one cartel threatens the others.
You correctly identify the problem as an over-complicated legal bureaucracy in your first paragraph, and propose more government as the solution in your third?
The solution here should be to simplify the legal system so legal adjudication is more accessible to non-lawyers, not add more layers of government bureaucracy on top of the existing ones.
The bureaucracy is not the body of law or the judiciary, which were the only government-related targets of my criticism. I agree that the legal system needs to be more accessible to non-lawyers. At the heart of that grievance is the professionalization (read: privatization) of the legal field, which turned a tool for finding justice, despite disputes into a career pursued for prestige and wealth. The problem is that the law and the people who adjudicate it have been captured by private enterprise. The bureaucracy is, like... the court clerks. Who I don't have a problem with, they're quite helpful.
In fact, they'd be integral to this "simplification of the legal system", since what that's essentially asking for is not to make adjudication more accessible, but to move disputes out of adjudication into a procedural venue (where the rules are simple, everyone knows them, and you either follow them and win, or don't and get the hammer).
Across all of the examples - legal recourse, healthcare, housing - what you're looking at is the end of the ambiguity of paradigms driven by private companies with opaque policies and conflicts of interest, and the arrival of an institutional monolith which can be changed by voting in elections. They don't even have to have a monopoly, they just have to be there as an option. I suppose policing is the exception, and while the vision there is unbundling instead of bundling, you're still looking at wresting control for social services out of the hands of the professionals who have captured it.
If you ask me, the solution to this matter in particular should be: (1) That all sides to civil litigation use court-appointed attorneys who are assigned at random and are sworn to not waste the court's time with delaying tactics, (2) That all persons should be granted the right to representation in civil court, an (3) That default judgments should not exist in the absence of the above; all matters should be adjudicated fairly.
In my opinion that would do little to solve the core problem, which is that adjuration is extremely expensive. It would just pass that high cost on to taxpayers and probably simultaneously 10x the demand because you just made it "free".
You could also just... not pay. And then lawyer-up when the IRS comes after you. (They will not come after you, because they know you've lawyered-up and aren't going to make it easy.)
IIRC this is part of how they avoid taxes in general. Penalties don't hurt enough for the ones who do eventually face them.
Boy, that's going to suck for people whose credit situation has shut them out of most traditional housing situations. Or people who rely on what other people don't consider food for sustenance, for whatever reason (protein powder? multivitamins? supplies to grow/produce your own foodstuffs?). Just as examples.
> Boy, that's going to suck for people whose credit situation has shut them out of most traditional housing situations.
There are lots of apartments available with no credit check. They're more often of lower quality, but if your situation is such that you want to spend less on rent and have more left for something else (like paying off your debts), why is it a problem for people to be able to choose that?
It's the status quo that screws them, because the government often pays out $1000/month or more in housing assistance but it's required to go directly to the landlord, and then if you have money problems but could live with family or are willing to take in a crappy low-rent studio apartment for a while, you can't take that money and use it to fix your situation instead because if you tried to do that the government takes it away.
> Or people who rely on what other people don't consider food for sustenance, for whatever reason (protein powder? multivitamins? supplies to grow/produce your own foodstuffs?).
Isn't this the opposite? If you give them a UBI then they can buy whatever they want. If you give them paternalistic micromanaged benefits like SNAP then they can buy carbonated high fructose corn syrup in a can but not vitamins or farming supplies.
You don't know what you're talking about. The corporate takeover of most rentals (apartments and homes alike) near the roadways and transit these people need to get to their jobs (let alone in areas where they wouldn't have to commute) has made those rentals inaccessible. They use little-known credit reporting companies specific to the rental industry that have basically no regulatory oversight, and which allow landlords to deny applications in an opaque way without liability. Housing voucher wait lists are years long; they're basically impossible to get on. The only housing assistance that was available to most people were pandemic-era emergency eviction grants, and those are gone.
Van life, couch surfing, living in hotels: these are the options available to them. And it's obviously not so simple as "roughing it" for a few months, as they're essentially forced to sell or abandon most of their personal property.
What you're talking about it taking people in those dire straits and forcing them to pay MORE money just to keep a roof over their heads, while millions of wealthier Americans own multiple properties where they and their family are the only residents. It's ridiculous.
>Isn't this the opposite? If you give them a UBI then they can buy whatever they want. If you give them paternalistic micromanaged benefits like SNAP then they can buy carbonated high fructose corn syrup in a can but not vitamins or farming supplies.
I am, once again, going to state that you don't seem to understand the topic at hand.
> The corporate takeover of most rentals (apartments and homes alike) near the roadways and transit these people need to get to their jobs (let alone in areas where they wouldn't have to commute) has made those rentals inaccessible.
> They use little-known credit reporting companies specific to the rental industry that have basically no regulatory oversight, and which allow landlords to deny applications in an opaque way without liability.
And then you rent from someone else because in reality large corporations own only a small percentage of rental units.
> Housing voucher wait lists are years long; they're basically impossible to get on.
You're again only making the argument for getting rid of those grants people can't get anyway in favor of a UBI that everyone gets automatically.
> What you're talking about it taking people in those dire straits and forcing them to pay MORE money just to keep a roof over their heads
How are they paying more money for anything to receive $1000 in cash instead of a $1000 payment that can only go to a landlord?
> I am, once again, going to state that you don't seem to understand the topic at hand.
Yeah, "It won't affect the 99%," is the wrong framing. The entire point is for it to affect the 99% (by undoing the effect disproportionately high wealth among the wealthiest and disproportionately low wealth among the middle and least wealthy).
I think your assumptions are off, though; less wealthy people might not be "forced" into investment at all, but given the "opportunity" to pay off debt or increase/diversify consumption. In the end, the important part is the wealth transfer downward, wherever it ends up. No trickle, but you can pump it.
In a globalized society, all of this is downstream of a dysfunctional economic system, which itself is downstream of the misplaced priorities of the countries with the most power. Speaking out of my ass, but I'd bet that the amount of money spent on wars by 5 certain countries over the past 5 years could have been used to eradicate Ebola. But we chose one use for all of that time and energy, and not the other, so here we are.
People figure out things to say about topics they care about. But the kind of person who comes to HN doesn't care about the DRC, so yeah, not much commentary. Not surprised, just disappointed. If such people also dislike being called out for their concern, that's kind of them to reconcile.
I wonder how many months until this suggestion becomes slightly embarrassing. I barely want my banks to know what I buy and to be responsible for my money. I really don't want them knowing everywhere I go online. Especially when "my" bank goes under and all of my data gets sold off to whoever takes it over.
> I barely want my banks to know what I buy and to be responsible for my money. I really don't want them knowing everywhere I go online.
Bank ID systems, at least the ones I’m familiar with, don't work like that. Your bank confirms your identity to the authentication provider, and the authentication provider sends you on to the site you are logging into. The bank does not see the site you are visiting.
(Also, the judge is colleagues with counsel, opposing or otherwise; none of them think much of you, which a trip to /r/LawyerTalk will confirm.)
All of this is a choice. Essentially the same choice that we have to have medical insurers instead of a single-payer system; a broken housing market controlled by large corporate interests, instead of one where prices are moderated by a stock of residences built by the government and sold at-cost or lower, as in Singapore or pre-Thatcher Great Britain; broken and spread-thin policing instead of the kind of sophisticated social support system that you would expect the richest country on the planet to be able to afford (and avoids sending the same armed ex-jock to domestic disturbances, mental health crises, car accidents, public school security, etc.). My suspicion is that the fight against change in any of these cases is so fierce because breaking one cartel threatens the others.
reply