Dear Friends,
It seems to me, the high cost of litigation bars the weak from the court system. This is entirely within the normal role of law… to serve the interests of the powerful at cost to the weak. A thirty thousand dollar cost to litigate a contract violation, land dispute, or any other issue is simply out of the reach of the weak. A powerful person can abuse the weak at will, and the law will protect the powerful. Made possible by the high cost of entry to the court system. This means the weak don’t have access to the courts for remediation. The system then is designed to protect the powerful and crush the weak. If you think this is a just and fair system, then you need do nothing… its working exactly as it should. If, however, you think that is an unjust and unfair system, you might want to read further.
In Plato’s Republic, the primary counter to Socrates was Thrasymachus. Thrasymachus made the argument that justice exists so the strong can exploit it against the weak, and call it “just.” What he meant is that those who write the laws should exploit that power as well as the power of adjudicating those same laws. He told the aristocracy that they had a divine right to unlimited rule. This right to unlimited rule was due to their being born in the aristocracy. He even gave them a road map to do it, exploit law to the advantage of the lawmaker. Without consciously saying it, he illustrated why law is a poor system to regulate mankind’s dangerous urges. Law is easily usurped to the lawmakers ends, instead of serving as a means of regulation of human behavior.
In ancient China there were three philosophies of human ordering that vied. One was legalism as epitomized by Shang Yang. Legalists posited the laws should be written down and strictly followed just or not. Then there was the Taoists. They believed the right ordering of society was by people epitomizing effortless action, emptiness, and adaptability. The last vying philosophy was the Confucian. Confucius taught that the right ordering of society is when people follow a moral code. Not a legalistic or philosophical way of being. He posited that people would argue to the head of a pin that law doesn’t apply to them This would make laws expand to cover all possibilities, and since that is impossible, law is a sub optimal system. Nevertheless, it is the system we live under.
In the West the legalists won the day and our lives are ordered by law, not morality or adaptability. Neither you nor I chose the system, it was thrust upon us by dint of birth. Just as Confucius predicted, the laws grow exponentially… probably by a power of e. This is because law cannot cover every situation, yet our system demands that it does. So the laws grow to cover ever less important situations. Eventually it governs the irrelevant. This trend is accelerated when those that write them are as far above them as those subject to them are below their protections. Pro se litigants in such a system are hobbled, due to the innate drive of any system to protect itself. If law was simple so anyone could defend themselves, why pay hundreds of dollars an hour for a lawyer?
In our legalist system those who write the laws exploit that ability. They also follow Thrasymachus’ theory of exploitative justice. Meanwhile, the weak are banned from participation even in protecting their rights. Some may argue they have free lawyers if arrested. To which I might respond, if public attorneys are so great why don’t the rich avail themselves of them? Why do the rich get Clarence Darrows? Because the lawyer’s political favor decides the case, not law, precedent or Constitutional restrictions. Judges decide based on favor first, then use those other things to back-fill their decision. What’s the answer? As usual it’s simple, put all lawyers and attorneys in a rotating cue, and pay them all the same amount of money out of public coffers. So everyone has the same access.
Sincerely,
John Pepin
