Submitted by Everitt Foster
I’m not much of a free market advocate anymore. I believe in limited capitalism. I believe markets should be subject to the forces of supply and demand, but I also believe that nations have the right and obligation to their people to try and secure the best possible deal for them economically. The debate is over. The libertarians have lost. No one takes the ideas of the ancap crowd seriously anymore.
Now the left loves talking about nationalizing health care. So let’s take a step to the right and instead of nationalizing health care we nationalize the legal profession.
All of it.
If you work as an attorney you will work for the government and you will be paid a salary by the government. No bonuses, no percentage of what you win, nothing. A flat salary, just like a public defender or a prosecutor.
In the case of a criminal trial, why should a poor man who can’t afford a lawyer to bargain away his sentence or bury the prosecution in legal documents, have a greater chance of going to prison than someone with millions of dollars to spend on high priced attorneys? The left loves to talk about sentencing in prison as a function of race. They’re wrong. It’s a function of money. It just so happens that the average black male has less money than the average white male and so will not be able to buy his freedom.
I’ve never heard a good objection to this suggestion in the fifteen years that I’ve been floating it around. This is because the legal system is the only thing the government has ever produced (except war, and I’m not so sure they’re dissimilar). Therefore, it is reasonable to say the government should have a monopoly on the parties who will defend and prosecute the crimes which it codifies in law.
A more difficult topic though, especially for my former libertarian brain, is what to do about attorneys in civil cases.
The government and courts create the laws and precedents which people use to sue each other. Again without government, there would be absolutely no lawsuits. Instead of seeking justice in a court of law they would seek revenge with physical force. Might would make right. So we can take this as a jumping off point for why there should be no private lawyers in civil cases either.
Ever get into a legal dispute with a multi-billion dollar company? I haven’t and I don’t want to because they will likely suffocate my attorney with paperwork making it financially impossible for me to carry on my case.
Now, why should that be legal? Why should some company with millions or even billions of dollars at its disposal be allowed to prevent me from having my day in court, simply because I can’t pay a lawyer as much as it can?
The solution is to nationalize the legal profession. If a company believes it has been wronged it will go down to the local court, ask for an attorney, and receive one attorney to handle the case. The other party will do the same. Each will have only one attorney at their disposal, and the attorneys will be free. There simply is no good reason why people should have to pay for a service that wouldn’t exist were it not for the existence of the government. Thus, the government has the obligation to provide equal access to the law.
What America needs, in terms of legal reform, begins with removing the money from a system in which all are alleged to be equal under the law. But right now, money makes it so that some of us are more equal than others.
Everitt Foster holds a Bachelor’s degree in geology, an MA in military history. He is an expert in modern military history, specifically wars of the 20th Century. He blogs at www.anaturalreaction.com He is also a novelist, having published two novels and a collection of short stories all dealing with issues such as nationalism and traditionalism. He is currently working on his fourth book and will soon launch a short story web magazine called Uprising Review which focuses on diversity of ideas rather than diversity quotas.
Much as I hate the Government and cherish my freedom, I see much merit in this idea. And to be honest, many lawyers would as well. It’s a real gravy train in the UK, where this is near reality.
Judges should have 2 be reelected yearly
This article conflates civic nationalism and racial nationalism. Just because we are racial nationalists, that doesn’t mean we want to nationalize everything, especially before whites have regained their sense of racial solidarity.
So, you believe that “equal access to the law”, which is proclaimed mostly by lawyers, is best assured by converting the lawyers’ cartels into government trade unions of which all members are government employees paid with taxes?
Sure, why not? What could go wrong?
I think duels should be brought back instead of petty civil suits. If you have a dispute with somebody, you should resolve it in a duel, both parties agreeing to terms and both parties needing winesses. Terms would include whether the duel ends in death, first blood, or time out. Whether weapons are to be used and the range of use (for example 10 paces). A moderator unaffiliated with either party will be chosen by the parties together or chosen by another party.
This would bring back both honor and respect in our society. People would stop acting like little bitches to keep from possible death in a duel. They would understand responsibility and consequences. Also unclog the legal proceedure.
This is dumb. You seem to think that money in the legal system is used to “suffocate” opposing parties with paperwork, whatever that means. In reality, money is used to pay for good lawyers. No matter the system there will be attorneys all along a skill spectrum. Nationalizing it would just make it even more corrupt. What should be done is drastically limit the amount of lawyers and drastically raise standards. The smaller the skill spectrum of lawyers, the more just the system.
“Some of my best friends are lawyers.”
Maybe better would be a low corporate tax (like Ireland’s) but very high taxes on corporate legal expenses. That should also include corporations like the ACLU. Also foundations. May require a constitutional amendment, but so would nationalization.
This would result in the same problem that every other nationalized service has – the underraces would demand the same benefits that taxpaying whites receive, and endlessly complain when the same government service doesn’t result in an equal outcome due to their stupidity. Blacks are notoriously foolish in demanding a trial instead of taking a reasonable plea bargain that their underpaid public defender negotiates for them. How would full nationalization solve this?
The legal profession needs to ban women.
I presume this essay is a joke, submitted too late for April 1st.
Alas, no. The writer is a cryptocommunist.