Lemon cars seem to me like an example where there is some hope. The problem there is that it is a conflict between individuals who only do this once and dealers who have a good statistical sense of the system. If you can streamline the process for the owners, then they are better off; if you advertise well, you might increase volume and not lose billable hours; if enough people sue, it may change the dealers’ strategies.
Divorce seems hopeless. You can encourage your client to negotiate a settlement, but it takes two to settle. The spouse’s lawyer will do what divorce lawyers have always done and encourage a fight. Unlike the lemon car case, where you might increase litigation to make up for the lost work per case, the number of divorces is fixed and is not going to be increased by being easy to file.
Coming back to the lemons, much good has come in the past from standardizing contracts. I don’t know about suit templates, but it seems hopeful. But your stated goal is to defect on your cartel! Don’t say that in public. I discussed how to camouflage this in the lemon case. And when you talk about machine-readable law, you are attempting to replace not yourself, but judges.
much good has come in the past from standardizing contracts.
Yeah, like what? Most of the standardization I see is designed to strip the consumer of her rights so far as the legislature will allow. I have a very narrow, non-random sample, though—what sort of already existing standardization do you think has produced good results?
And when you talk about machine-readable law, you are attempting to replace not yourself, but judges.
If you think of society as a business, the entire legal profession is a cost center, not a profit center. Litigation per se, as opposed to the consequences of litigation, makes no one happier, wiser, or more fulfilled. The more judges, lawyers, paralegals, and legislators we can put out of business, holding the equity and efficiency of society constant, the more personnel we free up for art, science, parenting, and play.
But your stated goal is to defect on your cartel! Don’t say that in public.
The comments on a discussion page on a rationality blog are “public”? If anyone cares enough to find this comment, they will either (a) be at least vaguely sympathetic by dint of their interest in rationality, or (b) be concerned enough about my activities to invest the time and energy to deduce my true goals the old-fashioned way, i.e., by noticing that I’m a bad liar. But thank you for trying to save my from myself. It’s sweet.
Lemon cars seem to me like an example where there is some hope. The problem there is that it is a conflict between individuals who only do this once and dealers who have a good statistical sense of the system. If you can streamline the process for the owners, then they are better off; if you advertise well, you might increase volume and not lose billable hours; if enough people sue, it may change the dealers’ strategies.
Divorce seems hopeless. You can encourage your client to negotiate a settlement, but it takes two to settle. The spouse’s lawyer will do what divorce lawyers have always done and encourage a fight. Unlike the lemon car case, where you might increase litigation to make up for the lost work per case, the number of divorces is fixed and is not going to be increased by being easy to file.
Coming back to the lemons, much good has come in the past from standardizing contracts. I don’t know about suit templates, but it seems hopeful. But your stated goal is to defect on your cartel! Don’t say that in public. I discussed how to camouflage this in the lemon case. And when you talk about machine-readable law, you are attempting to replace not yourself, but judges.
Yeah, like what? Most of the standardization I see is designed to strip the consumer of her rights so far as the legislature will allow. I have a very narrow, non-random sample, though—what sort of already existing standardization do you think has produced good results?
If you think of society as a business, the entire legal profession is a cost center, not a profit center. Litigation per se, as opposed to the consequences of litigation, makes no one happier, wiser, or more fulfilled. The more judges, lawyers, paralegals, and legislators we can put out of business, holding the equity and efficiency of society constant, the more personnel we free up for art, science, parenting, and play.
The comments on a discussion page on a rationality blog are “public”? If anyone cares enough to find this comment, they will either (a) be at least vaguely sympathetic by dint of their interest in rationality, or (b) be concerned enough about my activities to invest the time and energy to deduce my true goals the old-fashioned way, i.e., by noticing that I’m a bad liar. But thank you for trying to save my from myself. It’s sweet.