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