Energy executive chides Obama administration

[Balog]

I don't trust business to support my interests. But when they do support my interests, why wouldn't I be ok with that?

[roo_ster]

Running with SS's formulation would maximize the need for lawyer-critters to negotiate the gov't corridors.  I can see why he favors it to either a free market or working to make the market free-er.

For my own part, I would favor reducing gov't influence and forcing lawyers, lobbyists, and bureaucrats to get honest work.

[makattak]

Running with SS's formulation would maximize the need for lawyer-critters to negotiate the gov't corridors.  I can see why he favors it to either a free market or working to make the market free-er.

For my own part, I would favor reducing gov't influence and forcing lawyers, lobbyists, and bureaucrats to get honest work.

Well, I was going to avoid pointing out that all lawyer work is wasteful, unproductive, and playing a zero-sum game so it made sense Shootin would think playing the government game is a good idea, but I thought I'd avoid insulting lawyers that don't understand what I mean by "unproductive" work.

Since you went ahead and insulted them, I'll make the comment now.

[roo_ster]

Well, I was going to avoid pointing out that all lawyer work is wasteful, unproductive, and playing a zero-sum game so it made sense Shootin would think playing the government game is a good idea, but I thought I'd avoid insulting lawyers that don't understand what I mean by "unproductive" work.

Since you went ahead and insulted them, I'll make the comment now.

I don't agree that ALL lawyering is wasteful and parasitic, when freely chosen by free actors in the market and not required by necessity to deal with gov't.

In many cases (both personally and otherwise) a lawyer has become a necessity to minimize exposure to the tens (hundreds?) of thousands of pages of law & regulation at all levels of gov't.

I don't have to like it and I feel free to openly call it parasitic, as it adds no value while draining resources from productive endeavors.

[makattak]

In many cases (both personally and otherwise) a lawyer has become a necessity to minimize exposure to the tens (hundreds?) of thousands of pages of law & regulation at all levels of gov't.

There are good lawyers. Some lawyers do provide a valuable service.

However, all lawyering is unproductive: fighting regulations does not produce anything, it simply limits artificial harm created by other lawyers/bureaucrats.

Similar illustrations can be given about all lawyering: they are there either to cause harm to an entity or protect an entity from harm from other lawyer types. It's not that what either lawyer is doing is necessarily bad (situations will dictate that) but that they are not ADDING to production. They are subtracting.

[roo_ster]

How about contacts between two or more private entities?  Ensuring that everybody understands what is required of them seems useful. 

[Must...keep...gorge....down.  And then take a shower.  For the love of all that is holy, I can not believe I am on the, "Hey, not all lawyers are evil scum," side of this argument.  My encore for tomorrow: defending used car dealers from accusations that the are honorless knaves.]

[makattak]

How about contacts between two or more private entities?  Ensuring that everybody understands what is required of them seems useful. 

[Must...keep...gorge....down.  And then take a shower.  For the love of all that is holy, I can not believe I am on the, "Hey, not all lawyers are evil scum," side of this argument.  My encore for tomorrow: defending used car dealers from accusations that the are honorless knaves.]

From my post:

There are good lawyers. Some lawyers do provide a valuable service.

It's not productive, though. Even if they aren't there to clarify legalese (definitely unproductive), simply writing a contract is unproductive because the purpose of the contract is to provide a means of enforcement.

It is NECESSARY to have that means of enforcement, but we would be better off if we didn't NEED to enforce the agreement. That's what is meant by unproductive.

Police are unproductive as well. Their purpose is to STOP people from harming others. We would be better off if we didn't NEED cops, but because we do, we appreciante their useful service.

As such, lawyers are like Police. Of course, some lawyers are like the criminals as well, though.

Similarly, LOCKS are unproductive. Useful, yes, but it adds nothing to society. It simply prevents harm in the society. We'd be better off if we didn't need them.

[roo_ster]

Hoaky, I get your point.  Just needed a sledge hammer to drive it through my skull. 

[Werewolf]

...For my own part, I would favor reducing gov't influence and forcing lawyers, lobbyists, and bureaucrats to get honest work.

Easy to say...
But not practical...

Lawyers are kind'a like guns. You hope you'll never need one but when you do - need one that is - you really, really need one.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

How about contacts between two or more private entities?  Ensuring that everybody understands what is required of them seems useful. 

[Must...keep...gorge....down.  And then take a shower.  For the love of all that is holy, I can not believe I am on the, "Hey, not all lawyers are evil scum," side of this argument.  My encore for tomorrow: defending used car dealers from accusations that the are honorless knaves.]

Honest people can, and often do, draw up their own contracts and honor them, all without the need for lawyers and courts and whatnot.

[buzz_knox]

Honest people can, and often do, draw up their own contracts and honor them, all without the need for lawyers and courts and whatnot.

True.  As long as both parties are honorable and/or honest and are willing to work out disputes or issues between themselves, you don't need lawyers.  By the same logic, as long as criminals/tyrants/etc. are non-existent, or can be dealt with easily without lethal force, you don't need firearms. 

[FTA84]

Re: Lawyer/Police/ect. usefulness

It is kind of naive to argue usefulness (or uselessness) based upon preventing bad things happening.

By your logic, having a machine repair man at your factory is not productive, because when a machine breaks -- it wasn't supposed to have broken!

Same goes with people violating contracts, or baddies stealing your wallet, it wasn't supposed to happen -- but it did, does, and will continue to do.  Leeches come with having a productive society, there will always be people considered the least productive members by any standard.

Once you accept the reality that your machine will break from time to time, the machine repair man becomes productive.  He minimizes the loss of time of the productive people using the machine.  Does he add any productivity directly? No, but he reduces the inevitable loss of productivity, causing a net gain in productivity for the entire shop. 

To summarize: Repairman does not add instant individual productivity but repairman adds net productivity over time.

[makattak]

Re: Lawyer/Police/ect. usefulness

It is kind of naive to argue usefulness (or uselessness) based upon preventing bad things happening.

By your logic, having a machine repair man at your factory is not productive, because when a machine breaks -- it wasn't supposed to have broken!

Same goes with people violating contracts, or baddies stealing your wallet, it wasn't supposed to happen -- but it did, does, and will continue to do.  Leeches come with having a productive society, there will always be people considered the least productive members by any standard.

Once you accept the reality that your machine will break from time to time, the machine repair man becomes productive.  He minimizes the loss of time of the productive people using the machine.  Does he add any productivity directly? No, but he reduces the inevitable loss of productivity, causing a net gain in productivity for the entire shop. 

To summarize: Repairman does not add instant individual productivity but repairman adds net productivity over time.

No, repairman adds productivity. He takes a machine that is not producing and makes it produce (or produce better). Positive sum game. (He gets paid, machine works better.)

Lawyer and policeman work to prevent OTHER PEOPLE from damaging or harming individuals. ZERO-sum game. They get paid to prevent damage from other people. The more money you spend on police, the better you prevent crime, but you don't produce anything more.

The more money you spend on a repairman, the better the machine gets and you produce more things.

It's not that lawyers and police and not GOOD AND USEFUL. They are unproductive because they are there to prevent/decrease losses in a zero-sum game.

Anything that is done in a zero-sum game is unproductive.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

True.  As long as both parties are honorable and/or honest and are willing to work out disputes or issues between themselves, you don't need lawyers.  By the same logic, as long as criminals/tyrants/etc. are non-existent, or can be dealt with easily without lethal force, you don't need firearms. 

I've observed that being careful to avoid doing deals with dishonest people is far more effective than hiring a lawyer to protect you against dishonest people.  

I've also observed that once a lawyer becomes necessary, it is probably best just to cut your losses and run, right then and there.  Fighting contract disputes with lawyers never seems to benefit anyone except the lawyers.  Better to employ your resources doing something productive than to waste them fighting over the carcass of failed transaction.

I'll grant that there may possibly be a good reason to use a lawyer to resolve a contract dispute, although I've not seen one.  There may also be an Easter Bunny, but I haven't seen him yet either.

[FTA84]

No, repairman adds productivity. He takes a machine that is not producing and makes it produce (or produce better). Positive sum game. (He gets paid, machine works better.)

Lawyer and policeman work to prevent OTHER PEOPLE from damaging or harming individuals. ZERO-sum game. They get paid to prevent damage from other people. The more money you spend on police, the better you prevent crime, but you don't produce anything more.

The more money you spend on a repairman, the better the machine gets and you produce more things.

It's not that lawyers and police and not GOOD AND USEFUL. They are unproductive because they are there to prevent/decrease losses in a zero-sum game.

Anything that is done in a zero-sum game is unproductive.

You are insufferable about this.

Ok better scenario for repairman.  Lets replace him with tinman.

Tinman walks around with an oil can and oils the machines.  He prevents bad things from happening, if he were not there, the machine would stop and everyone would be sent home.  Now you say, HE ONLY PREVENTS LOSS OF PRODUCTIVITY.  That is just verbiage.  He still had productivity value because productivity with him is higher than productivity without him.

Preventing productivity loss is the same as adding productivity much like -(-1)=+1

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Maintenance, whether proactive or reactive, enables the machine to produce.  What do lawyers enable that decent people cannot accomplish without lawyers?

[Balog]

Maintenance, whether proactive or reactive, enables the machine to produce.  What do lawyers enable that decent people cannot accomplish without lawyers?

I don't know where you got your magic truth detector that works in both the present and throughout the entirety of the future, but I'd love a link. I need to get me one of those.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I don't know where you got your magic truth detector that works in both the present and throughout the entirety of the future, but I'd love a link. I need to get me one of those.

If you have a point, would you care to make it?

[Balog]

If you have a point, would you care to make it?

I don't like lawyers either, but the position "if you don't do business with dishonest people you wouldn't need lawyers durr" is foolish.

[makattak]

You are insufferable about this.

Ok better scenario for repairman.  Lets replace him with tinman.

Tinman walks around with an oil can and oils the machines.  He prevents bad things from happening, if he were not there, the machine would stop and everyone would be sent home.  Now you say, HE ONLY PREVENTS LOSS OF PRODUCTIVITY.  That is just verbiage.  He still had productivity value because productivity with him is higher than productivity without him.

Preventing productivity loss is the same as adding productivity much like -(-1)=+1

You'll find me more insufferable.

It's not that he is preventing his productivity loss. It's that his "oil" increases the production of those products by some amount greater than his pay. Without him in the picture, the machines would stop working. Positive sum game.

Lawyers prevent losses caused by other people. They might save you more money than if you had to deal with non-performing contractors, but they don't increase production of ANYTHING. You just lose less. Zero-sum game.

This isn't to say lawyers and police don't earn their pay: the amount the get payed is most definitely less than the amount you would have to pay without them. The key factor, though, is the other people. We are better off without people who are playing a zero-sum game and taking from others.

[FTA84]

Maintenance, whether proactive or reactive, enables the machine to produce.  What do lawyers enable that decent people cannot accomplish without lawyers?

I am staying away from lawyers dealing with the government, as I have discussed in many other posts, government regulations serve only to inhibit/discourage productivity.

I will work under the premise that you believe that patents (intellectual property rights) are important.

Someone infringes upon your patent.  Now what is your day job? You run your company, maybe even make the product you patented by hand, who knows....

You need to clear up the situation with the other person infringing upon your patent.  This other person is much better looking, charismatic, and is quite slippery.  Now you need to convince a third party (be it a judge or whatever, but in this world we don't need as much legal language or technical knowledge of patent law because there are no lawyers).

Your only choice is to step away from your business, and lose much money, while you learn how to argue against this guy.  Figure out the best way to prove to the judge that you indeed have the correct patent background, ect, ect..

In a world with lawyers, this would of cost you $2000 (a measure of productivity), in this silly world, you took 2 weeks off from your company and it cost you $7000 dollars.

Also in a world without lawyers, the slick willy's that would have become lawyers would run around, breaking contracts and infringing on patents because they know they can argue well infront of a judge.

Believe it or not, some lawyers do actually have a tangible skill to convince people of things.

Edit: As you see in this example, the lawyer is acting as oiling the machine of patent law.  Preventing people from stealing your patent, there by increasing your productivity (and society's productivity because there would be little incentive to invent if people could just steal it from you).

You live in a naive world where bad things shouldn't happen, I live in a pragmatic world where bad things that do happen and -(-1) =+1

[makattak]

I am staying away from lawyers dealing with the government, as I have discussed in many other posts, government regulations serve only to inhibit/discourage productivity.

I will work under the premise that you believe that patents (intellectual property rights) are important.

Someone infringes upon your patent.  Now what is your day job? You run your company, maybe even make the product you patented by hand, who knows....

You need to clear up the situation with the other person infringing upon your patent.  This other person is much better looking, charismatic, and is quite slippery.  Now you need to convience a third party (be it a judge or whatever, but in this world we don't need as much legal language or technical knowledge of patent law because there are no lawyers).

Your only choice is to step away from your business, and lose much money, while you learn how to argue against this guy.  Figure out the best way to prove to the judge that you indeed have the correct patent background, ect, ect..

In a world with lawyers, this would of cost you $2000 (a measure of productivity), in this silly world, you took 2 weeks off from your company and it cost you $7000 dollars.

Also in a world without lawyers, the slick willy's that would have become lawyers would run around, breaking contracts and infringing on patents because they know they can argue well infront of a judge.

Believe it or not, some lawyers do actually have a tangible skill to convince people of things.

You just described limiting losses in a zero-sum game. Well done.

[FTA84]

You just described limiting losses in a zero-sum game. Well done.

Its the exact same example as oiling a machine....yet you claimed that was a positive sum game

[makattak]

Its the exact same example as oiling a machine....yet you claimed that was a positive sum game

No, it's not.

The machine is not trying to take value from you. The machine itself has a certain value and "lifespan". All capital wears out because capital becomes depleted by use.

Repairing capital increases its productivity by lengthening its life or making it more efficient. Positive sum game, increase in value to society.

Someone stealing your patent is taking intellectual property from you. What they gain, you lose. Zero sum game.

The lawyer lowers the loss from the taking, but you still lose. You just lose less. Zero sum game. Society gets nothing extra, just different people get the gains.

[FTA84]

No, it's not.

The machine is not trying to take value from you. The machine itself has a certain value and "lifespan". All capital wears out because capital becomes depleted by use.

Repairing capital increases its productivity by lengthening its life or making it more efficient. Positive sum game, increase in value to society.

Someone stealing your patent is taking intellectual property from you. What they gain, you lose. Zero sum game.

The lawyer lowers the loss from the taking, but you still lose. You just lose less. Zero sum game. Society gets nothing extra, just different people get the gains.

So you agree that locally (at the level of the individual) it is a positive sum game.  Whether or not a machine is malicious in its intent, a loss is a loss no matter if it is a person or a machine causing said loss.

Now globally, society gets people with security in inventing and incentive to invent (they get to keep what they invent and someone just can't smooth talk a judge over because you can hire your own smooth talker).

This is exactly the same as the police (as you have mentioned before).  People will steal, and those people may be bigger than you.  Without police, the big people could just steal from all the little people or the evil people from the good people, ect.  However, police minimize losses (as you have mentioned) and thus increase overall productivity.

You just keep arguing the same tired point that somehow "preventing losses" is not "increasing productivity" and I agree in a perfect world where nothing bad ever happens (machines don't break or need oiled), that is exactly what occurs.

In the real world, losses do happen and minimizing those losses (either at the individual or societial level) causes a net gain in productivity.