Universal Legal Representation

[Idolater]

I seem to recall Jesus being not too happy with the publicans...

Publicans are rendered tax collectors in many English versions of the Bible. I'm pretty sure monarchs collect and depend upon taxation to fund their regime. Is your model constitutional monarchism which you promote here not dependent upon taxation? If so that detail escaped me.

And you claim to be a RE-publican.

Yeah or a whig. Representative democracy where we elect representatives to represent us in lawmaking.

I'm not sure how that's at all relevant to what I said, or this thread, for that matter. Irrelevant to who leads a nation, if it's laws are unjust, and/or if its legal system is inherently flawed, the people will suffer.

A lot of what you said reflects your political ideology. Where we differ so much on such a fundamental level, I'm not sure we'll be able to constructively discuss the OP. I'm not abandoning discussion with you, but I am expressing concerns right up front about it.

Like by contrast an anarchist differs with us both on an even more fundamental level.

 

[TomO]

I'm much more envisioning average Americans being better defended in negotiations and civil disputes.

Average Americans don't negotiate anything which would require legal representation. For the incredibly vast majority that do it will be for buying real estate (Which is a minor cost of doing such if you are smart.)

Those that do; can well afford to pay for their own peace of mind and protection...Otherwise they wouldn't be in the position they are in to begin with.

Civil disputes?...Unless it's small claims (Which most decidedly do not need lawyers involved.) ambulance chasers exist for a reason. I see no purpose to adding a state check to that reason.

Do I think People with legal representation, all other things being equal, are better off than people without an attorney? Sure.

I also think that people with fuzzy pink woolen mittens, all other things being equal, are better off than people without sweet fuzzy mittens...Don't expect me to subsidize the wool industry though.

 

[TomO]

Like by contrast an anarchist differs with us both on an even more fundamental level.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Publicans are rendered tax collectors in many English versions of the Bible. I'm pretty sure monarchs collect and depend upon taxation to fund their regime. Is your model constitutional monarchism which you promote here not dependent upon taxation? If so that detail escaped me.

The system I promote has only a 5% individual increase tax, which is dropped to 1% when the king estimates that the Treasury surplus can fund the government for seven years.

That's it. That's the only tax there is. No government can function without a means of funding, hence taxation, hence why Jesus Himself said to render taxes to whom they are due.

The issue isn't "does the government rely on tax," it's "how much does it burden the people with taxes."

Currently, the tax rate is about 50%.

God said 10% tax was tyrannical, and if it were 0% tax then the government would not be funded and could not function.

5% splits the difference, since it strikes a balance between the government being able to function, and having as little government burden on the people as possible while not being tyrannical.

Yeah or a whig. Representative democracy where we elect representatives to represent us

Which is just democracy slowed.

And democracy is evil.

in lawmaking.

Good laws are not made, they are discovered.

No nation has the right to make up laws.

A lot of what you said reflects your political ideology. Where we differ so much on such a fundamental level, I'm not sure we'll be able to constructively discuss the OP. I'm not abandoning discussion with you, but I am expressing concerns right up front about it.

Scared you'll have to change your mind?

Like by contrast an anarchist differs with us both on an even more fundamental level.

Anarchists don't have a leg to stand on, and quickly end up with some form of dictatorship, because "what I say goes, and if you don't like it, then ..."

 

[Clete]

Our political ideologies are very very different. While we both agree that government is good (neither of us are anarchists), I am much more of a republican (a "whig") and you're an absolute monarchist. I say absolute because I've examined the constitutional monarchism you advocate here, and I don't see any protection against a rogue monarch in that proposal. I believe @Clete saw the same problem, but idk if he still agrees with that critique.

It isn't an absolute monarchy. The king would have no authority to make fiat law as would be the case in an absolute monarchy.

What we have today in America, where Presidents can forgive debts at will, persecute political enemies without due process of law and arbitrarily decide whether or not to defend the nation's borders would be much closer to an absolute monarchy than anything JR or I support.

What we support is a system where a free people are governed by the rule of law and were criminal justice is based on actual justice and not popular opinion and the political leanings of any particular judge.

Clete

 

[Idolater]

The system I promote has only a 5% individual increase tax, which is dropped to 1% when the king estimates that the Treasury surplus can fund the government for seven years.

That's it. That's the only tax there is. No government can function without a means of funding, hence taxation

Tariffs and duties are another revenue option which is why I wasn't sure if your model included taxation or not.

, hence why Jesus Himself said to render taxes to whom they are due.

The issue isn't "does the government rely on tax," it's "how much does it burden the people with taxes."

OK.

Currently, the tax rate is about 50%.

We've disagreed on this before, I'm seeing it's more like 30% if I recall correctly, according to the sources I've used, but regardless it is a lot higher than 5% or 10%.

God said 10% tax was tyrannical, and if it were 0% tax then the government would not be funded and could not function.

5% splits the difference, since it strikes a balance between the government being able to function, and having as little government burden on the people as possible while not being tyrannical.

This depends upon how much God says about taxation that applies to Gentiles today (Old Testament versus whatever applies to Gentiles today), which is theological, and then upon political ideology, which I mentioned.

Which is just democracy slowed.

Constitutional republicanism protects against the threats of absolute democracy.

And democracy is evil.



Good laws are not made, they are discovered.

No nation has the right to make up laws.

What about the rules of the road?

Scared you'll have to change your mind?

lol no. I'm open to being persuaded.

Anarchists don't have a leg to stand on, and quickly end up with some form of dictatorship, because "what I say goes, and if you don't like it, then ..."

We agree that anarchism would eventually and probably rapidly, devolve into something much worse.

 

[Idolater]

Average Americans don't negotiate anything which would require legal representation.

Not daily but surely within any year and if not within any decade, there are basically contracts that we make with others. Like when we are employed or when we have a dispute with our employer, but also just all these rascally laws that are made, judges have the power to protect people if they can get their case before a judge.

For the incredibly vast majority that do it will be for buying real estate (Which is a minor cost of doing such if you are smart.)

Sure. If not for the expense legal representation is a good idea in a nation of laws. Thus the OP.

Those that do; can well afford to pay for their own peace of mind and protection...Otherwise they wouldn't be in the position they are in to begin with.

What about the people who really can't afford a lawyer?

Civil disputes?...Unless it's small claims (Which most decidedly do not need lawyers involved.) ambulance chasers exist for a reason. I see no purpose to adding a state check to that reason.

Lawyers don't need to be involved in small claims because of the expense though. There are a lot of small infractions that people just let go. On a national level if you were to tally up all these individual infractions I would bet the amount of total money involved is not small.

Do I think People with legal representation, all other things being equal, are better off than people without an attorney? Sure.

Great.

I also think that people with fuzzy pink woolen mittens, all other things being equal, are better off than people without sweet fuzzy mittens...Don't expect me to subsidize the wool industry though.

We're a nation of laws, not of mittens.

 

[Idolater]

It isn't an absolute monarchy. The king would have no authority to make fiat law as would be the case in an absolute monarchy.

What we have today in America, where Presidents can forgive debts at will, persecute political enemies without due process of law and arbitrarily decide whether or not to defend the nation's borders would be much closer to an absolute monarchy than anything JR or I support.

What we support is a system where a free people are governed by the rule of law and were criminal justice is based on actual justice and not popular opinion and the political leanings of any particular judge.

Clete

But what if the monarch abuses his power? I don't see any protection against that in the constitutional monarchism promoted by you and JR.

 

[TomO]

We're a nation of laws, not of mittens.

Sez you.

 

[Idolater]

Sez you.

Got me there.

 

[TomO]

Got me there.

Look...The fact of the matter is what you are proposing will make every day life a quagmire. I honestly don't know how you think the rampant proliferation of lawyers would ever be a good thing.

But you like living that way I guess, some lotsa people do. I accepted this long ago... Not much to discuss, you dig your kings.

1Samuel 8:10-20 NASB

10 So Samuel spoke all the words of the Lord to the people who had asked of him a king. 11 He said, “This will be the procedure of the king who will reign over you: he will take your sons and place them for himself in his chariots and among his horsemen and they will run before his chariots. 12 He will appoint for himself commanders of thousands and of fifties, and some to do his plowing and to reap his harvest and to make his weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. 13 He will also take your daughters for perfumers and cooks and bakers. 14 He will take the best of your fields and your vineyards and your olive groves and give them to his servants. 15 He will take a tenth of your seed and of your vineyards and give to his officers and to his servants. 16 He will also take your male servants and your female servants and your best young men and your donkeys and use them for his work. 17 He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his servants. 18 Then you will cry out in that day because of your king whom you have chosen for yourselves, but the Lord will not answer you in that day.”

19 Nevertheless, the people refused to listen to the voice of Samuel, and they said, “No, but there shall be a king over us, 20 that we also may be like all the nations, that our king may judge us and go out before us and fight our battles.”

 

[JudgeRightly]

Tariffs and duties are another revenue option which is why I wasn't sure if your model included taxation or not.

In case you've forgotten:

The Proposed Constitution of America | KGOV.com

kgov.com

OK.

We've disagreed on this before, I'm seeing it's more like 30% if I recall correctly, according to the sources I've used, but regardless it is a lot higher than 5% or 10%.

This depends upon how much God says about taxation that applies to Gentiles today (Old Testament versus whatever applies to Gentiles today), which is theological, and then upon political ideology, which I mentioned.

God liked monarchy enough to institute one in His own personal nation. If we're going to have a righteous government, modeling one after the nation He made is probably a good place to start. As for the laws we would use, one needs to determine which laws were meant strictly for His nation, and which can be applied universally, regardless of the nation.

Using the 10 Commandments alone, we see that exactly 5 of them are the foundation of a criminal justice system, do not murder, do not steal, do not commit adultery, do not bear false witness (perjury), and do not covet what belongs to one's neighbor.

The first four are foundational to determining what is a crime, while the fifth is used in determining motive, both of which are needed to convict someone of wrongdoing.

As for taxation, "do not steal applies." And @TomO quoted the relevant passage I was referring to above regarding a 10% tax being tyrannical.

See also Romans 13.

Constitutional republicanism protects against the threats of absolute democracy.

Biblical Apologetic for America's Constitutional Monarchy | KGOV.com

kgov.com

What about the rules of the road?

That falls under the Code of Use (not finished and not yet published), which regulates real estate zoning and use of infrastructure.

lol no. I'm open to being persuaded.

Good.

We agree that anarchism would eventually and probably rapidly, devolve into something much worse.

 

[Clete]

But what if the monarch abuses his power? I don't see any protection against that in the constitutional monarchism promoted by you and JR.

I agree that it is a flaw and I believe it is one that can be rectified but even if it weren't or can't be, it would be a far superior system to the tyranny of the loudest minority that we've turned this nation into and that it was always destined, by its very nature, to become.

The fact is that there isn't going to be a perfect way to govern human beings this side of the New Heaven and New Earth. The closest we will come is when Jesus Christ sits as the Monarch of the World. Prior to that time, the closest we could come would be to have the same system in place.

You may not trust that system but for every flaw you can find in it, there are fifty in the system we currently live under. Not only that, but the system we advocate for is the only system that you could possibly make a biblical argument in favor of.

 

[Idolater]

Here's a case that had a happy turnout, and that in a world with universal subsidized legal representation, would have happened a lot more frequently, more quickly solving this woke Democratic ideological problem we're facing right now.

Teacher gets $95,000 to settle lawsuit over refusal to use student's preferred name | CNN

A Kansas teacher who argued she had a religious belief that prevented her from calling transgender or nonbinary students by their preferred names and pronouns reached a $95,000 settlement with school district officials, according to a release from the teacher's attorneys.

us.cnn.com

Basically with everybody lawyered up preemptively our legislatures will be Constitutionally limited far more aggressively. Eventually they all might even learn to not even try to pull these stunts in the first place.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Here's a case that had a happy turnout, and that in a world with universal subsidized legal representation, would have happened a lot more frequently, more quickly solving this woke Democratic ideological problem we're facing right now.

Teacher gets $95,000 to settle lawsuit over refusal to use student's preferred name | CNN

A Kansas teacher who argued she had a religious belief that prevented her from calling transgender or nonbinary students by their preferred names and pronouns reached a $95,000 settlement with school district officials, according to a release from the teacher's attorneys.

us.cnn.com

Basically with everybody lawyered up preemptively our legislatures will be Constitutionally limited far more aggressively. Eventually they all might even learn to not even try to pull these stunts in the first place.

It amounts to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

If parents educated their children to begin with, the teacher wouldn't have ever needed to deal with something like this in the first place. If homosexuality was a crime (because it is according to God, and has been for the past 3500 years), the children would not have been abused to the point where they think they are something that they are not, and the people who abused them would have been tried for sexual abuse of children, and put to death upon conviction.

And the good thing is that there wouldn't have been any need for a single lawyer..

Not only that, but we wouldn't be bickering about whether it's "freedom of religion" to refuse to cater to the lusts of those who sexualize children, because the very sexualization of the children would be a crime!

 

[Idolater]

... I was just about as ignorant as you are now 20 years ago. I started studying because I knew my own ignorance. I studied hard for a decade and I still listen to those honest economists and financial analysts so I can increase my understanding and knowledge. Know your limitations. It's the beginning of wisdom.

You're 20 years behind me then. Best catch up.

 

[Idolater]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1591252581073924098

Why?

Cos he can easily afford a lawyer (many). We can all have this. This freedom. This power. This respect. Universal legal representation means this. Right now, only people like former President Trump fully enjoy the blessings of liberty that our regime secures for us in this way. You can't get just get hold of an office in this government and bully people, if those people can easily afford a lawyer.

 

[Right Divider]

Cos he can easily afford a lawyer (many). We can all have this. This freedom. This power. This respect. Universal legal representation means this. Right now, only people like former President Trump fully enjoy the blessings of liberty that our regime secures for us in this way. You can't get just get hold of an office in this government and bully people, if those people can easily afford a lawyer.

Socialism sucks; always has, always will.

 

[Clete]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1591252581073924098

Why?

Cos he can easily afford a lawyer (many). We can all have this. This freedom. This power. This respect. Universal legal representation means this. Right now, only people like former President Trump fully enjoy the blessings of liberty that our regime secures for us in this way. You can't get just get hold of an office in this government and bully people, if those people can easily afford a lawyer.

So your solution is to force people to provide legal services for far less than that service is worth to people who cannot pay for it and have done nothing to earn it at the expense of people who do not need it and don't want to pay for it.

Is there ANY law or policy that liberals advocate that doesn't violate "Thou shalt not steal."? It seems their whole system is built on basically two precepts...

1. Sex without consequences.
2. Take money by force from those who have earned it and give to people to don't or won't earn anything.

 

[Right Divider]

1. Sex without consequences.

Everything without consequences.