X-Message-Number: 29666
From: "John de Rivaz" <>
References: <>
Subject: Re: lawyers
Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 10:59:17 +0100

> But almost surely this problem with the capitalist
> system is due to lawyers, correct?
>
>
> -unperson

It would be nice to say yes, but the real answer is no.

The way lawyers practise in the capitalist system has been degraded by the 
system, which has the property of maximising the rewards for introducing 
goods or service people want.

In the old USSR, according to a TV programme whose name and even date I have 
forgotten, lawyers there worked for no more than the average wage and were 
therefore accessible to everyone without complicated (and self defeating) 
systems of legal aid. Of course their lifestyles were no different to the 
average person: no social status, flash cars, exotic holidays, expensive 
suits or cocktail parties.

No system is perfect, and the capitalist system has its drawbacks. 
Degradation of caring professions is one of them. There will no doubt be 
howls of derision if I write that lawyers are a caring profession, but 
really they should be classed as one. They should care for clients who want 
to arrange their affairs to remain within the law of the country in which 
they reside and minimalise penalties such as compliance fees, taxation, 
fines or even imprisonment or enforced labour. Unfortunately, as Dawkins 
wrote, the profession as a whole has gradually evolved into a system that 
extracts as much money as possible from the two sides to any argument, 
whilst appearing to represent the best interests of their clients. The 
profession has made life so complicated that even a simple will, if drawn up 
by a lawyer, can cost as much as a good late model second hand car. In the 
UK it costs of the order of $45,000 for the average person to move house --  
that is not buying anything at all, just the taxes and paperwork associated 
with buying one house and selling another. [I also use the term "lawyer" not 
just to mean "attorney" but also anyone involved with administering the 
legal system, such as accountants, insurance and estate agents etc.]

What has happened is that people appear to want the services of lawyers 
because the profession has organised itself through legislation such that 
people cannot so things like buying and selling houses, making wills and so 
on without a professional to deal with what has become a complicated service 
using arcane complicated language. So the "want" has been subverted to "must 
have".

If the people who put in the "must" also make a profit, then they are going 
to insert more "must"s and make more profit, and will be rewarded at the 
expense of those who offer the system the opportunity to make voluntary 
purchases. That is the flaw in the system.

In the UK 30% of legislators come from legal professions, whereas the 
proportion of lawyers in the population is far less. I would doubt that many 
or even any deliberately promote legislation to boost the income of their 
profession. It is more likely that they are oblivious to the costs they are 
draining from the productive economy. The whole thing is a lot more subtle 
than a dastardly plot hatched late at night in a smoke filled cellar.

Also there are legal adventurers. They are people that seek out situations 
such as an incorrectly completed legal procedure, find someone who may 
profit, and then offer to fight their case. Often the "client" will find 
that he has won, but most of the result goes as costs go to the lawyer. 
Again this a subject frequently covered by the press and media, but it 
doesn't stop some gullible people getting involved.

I suspect that there will now be some readers wondering what the heck this 
has to do with cryonics.

What cryonicists want has to be paid for, but it is extremely vulnerable to 
the predations of the legal system as a whole. Of course individual lawyers 
employed by cryonicists will obey rules that seem to offer the best for 
their clients. But the system as a whole is clients vs the legislature or 
government, and this system generates a  situation where the client needs 
lots of different forms  producing, engrossing and witnessing or notarising. 
Lawyers may well be intrigued by the idea of cryonics, and research all 
sorts of what if situations which cost money and time to resolve.

Therefore the money available for what people want is reduced by the 
predations of the legal profession. This is analagous to the $45k people 
have to pay to move, after having already stretched themselves financially 
to pay for their next home.

I see the best that cryonics movement can do is to generate as many forms as 
it can to cover every eventuality that can be conceived and offer them to 
members to sign. Of course an individual is still free to employ a lawyer 
and use these as a basis for their own arrangements.

But do bear in mind that the "cryopreservation fees" asked by the cryonics 
service providers are really minimums. If your organisation, and by 
extension yourself, is to survive, overfunding is necessary. Because 
providing funding that doesn't go through probate, however it is done, is 
expensive compared to funding by a will, most people will leave their 
residual estate to their cryonics service providers. That residual estate is 
very sensitive to large expenditures for services (ie there are no things 
for the executors to sell). That is, unless the testator is someone who can 
generate wealth far more than lawyers (think Bill Gates and so on).

-- 
Sincerely, John de Rivaz:  http://John.deRivaz.com for websites including
Cryonics Europe, Longevity Report, The Venturists, Porthtowan, Alec Harley
Reeves - inventor, Arthur Bowker - potter, de Rivaz genealogy,  Nomad .. and
more 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=29666