If Libertarians believe that healthcare for all shouldn't exist because it is a positive right (and therefore would...

If Libertarians believe that healthcare for all shouldn't exist because it is a positive right (and therefore would mean you own a doctor's labor) does that also mean you shouldn't have a right to counsel since that is also a positive right?

>right to counsel
wtf is that? you mean Threapy?

a lawyer you dumb shit

boipucci?

Is that a dude

Really you shouldn't need council to argue your way through a labyrinthine series of laws and regulations thought up by neurotic Jews for no purpose other than to keep their jobs generating incomprehensible volumes of arbitrary rules. The notion that you should need someone to understand the rules of society for you in a civilization with near universal literacy is the flaw in the premise. Any normal person of reasonable intelligence should have no problem representing themselves in a fair system of law.

lol that face

>healthcare for all
it can, if they voluntarily do it

this

Would you fuck a butterface if the body was on point?

How is that even a question?
Have you never heard of doggystyle?

The government literally has to employ lawyers dipshit

Yeah, this is pretty stupid. People did not make the law complicated just for fun. Real life situations are fairly complex, and the world does not operate the simplistic, black and white way that many libertarians think it does.

I don't believe in it because by 2030 so many Americans will be diabetic the entire country will be bankrupt trying to treat them.

Actually, no, faggot.
The law should be pretty simple: Did you physically harm someone or their property? Did you commit fraud? Did you violate a contract?
Those are the only rules a civilized society needs. The bureaucratic bullshit we have today is nothing but corruption all the way down. There are laws on what kind of fucking toilet you can install in your house, for fuck's sake.

>doggystyle
but i like to see their eyes go red while i coke/fuck them

>People did not make the law complicated just for fun.
Also this belies your fundamental lack of any kind of conception of how the world works. Laws become arbitrary and needlessly complicated because they benefit the state and the financial elite which pays them. Laws make it harder for smaller people to compete, handing an advantage to the elites, and laws make it easier for the state to keep the population under control. You commit 3 felonies a day without even realizing it, you communist faggot.

And the government would employ doctors if we had universal healthcare, dipshit

It was designed as a protection against government. The founding fathers had the foreknowledge that governments with absolute power take advantage of the citizens.

you have to be 18 or over to post on this site

>People did not make the law complicated just for fun
Did you even read his comment? The ridiculous amount of laws that exist are an example of how "those that create them" only serve to benefit themselves. Ideally, and properly, you shouldn't by default require a lawyer to defend yourself in most cases.

No, because going to trial for violating the NAP is not a positive right or something you seek out like seeking out medical care is.

thats what arbitration is for. To look deeper into the nuance of special situations. The law is meant to be applied to everyone in all situations. Codifying the infinite number of special exceptions, both as they come up and in a vain attempt to predict them, is what leads to ever more complicated laws that necessitate specially educated professionals to deal with it.

>People did not make the law complicated just for fun.
Right, they did it for job security.

Let's take the toilet thing. So you want a giga-three-thousand toilet that whirrs and clicks loudly every single time you flush. Your next door neighbor now has a lower property value, because if they try and sell it, they will get less money for it. What is more important? Your rights, or theirs?

What is fraud? What is violating a contract? You have to have incredibly long and robust definitions for those to ensure that justice is done the same way every time.

You can choke on food, but you can't choke a person. You strangle them.
t. Had 2.5-10 year sentence.

Is there an argument to follow this up?

Here let's compromise. We can keep the laws complicated but at least not require a working understanding of latin to be able to read them. Can we start by writing our laws in english? Or am I a child now for expecting that?

Getting cancer is not necessarily your fault
Committing murder (and then getting free counsel) is your fault

dude libertarians don't care about logical consistencies they just want less taxes and think saying "i'm a libertarian" means that

Right to counsel has to be given because you can't represent yourself, and the government is coercing you into a position where you must be represented.

this is literally how people become libertarians: they have no idea what they're talking about but think they're right then start sharing their opinions online

Thousands of pages are needed to explain that fraud is when you use deception in business transactions?

Could we bring it down to at least 100?

does sickness coerce you into a position where you must be treated?

>Memeflag making an ass of himself
Par for the course

This

Legal representation shouldn't be free, but keep in mind that the current state of the law and legal system is one in which the government operate through force and could be done about 100x better by any other method.

We can't even enumerate all the laws in the west, there's something like 40,000+ in america alone. If it's too much for any one person to understand then its too much to expect people to honor such laws.

We all know this feeling, not one of us knows even 100 of those laws much less all 40k+

yeah because that's how information theory works you can just keep shrinking things and retain the same meaning

You only have a right to legal counsel if you're charged with a crime.

Basically uncle sam has to find someone to defend you before they find someone to prosecute you. In the astronomically unlikely event that they can't find someone willing to defend you, no fair trial and the charges are dropped. They couldn't compel someone to defend you either, which is what libertarians would object to.

Anyway that argument against universal healthcare is stupid for similar reasons. We'd have to be extremely far along in a totalitarian regime to the point that the state enslaves doctors. Libertarians should object to universal healthcare based on economic arguments.

>does sickness coerce
No. Moral/legal agents coerce. Speaking like sickness "coerces" is intellectually dishonest.

Do you really think that the current american approch to law is not exceedingly more complicated than is necessary to ensure the law is functional and consistent?

As for that matter, does it currently achieve that right now anyways?

>t. Had 2.5-10 year sentence.
Greentext?

explain how i'm wrong, libertardian

Which is why laws are written in their own distinct dialect that inhibits laymen from easily understanding them, right? You need to obfuscate the rules of society to make it more specific and handle complexity because?

You're probably a legit brainlet who has a tenuous grasp of political philosophy if you can't imagine a world without the absurdity of the legal systems in the West my man.

Butterfaces are much more loyal than girls with pretty faces but dumpy bodies.

>persuade (an unwilling person) to do something by using force or threats.

sounds like what sickness does

Right, of course the bourgeoisie uses their influence to make things worse. But saying that a complicated law is inherently bad is absolutely specious, because there are many factors that a judge ought to take into consideration.

Rich people do create laws to benefit themselves, of course. But there is not always a simple answer. At what point do we say that a sale is complete? That a delivery is complete? Do we have the right to self-defense? Where does that begin and end?

No, arbitration is for big companies to screw over small companies, and customers. The law is meant to be applied equally, yes, but if there is no case law, and not even an attempt to account for possibilities, then the law will not be applied 'to everyone in all situations'.

That is fine. There are complicated laws which are still useful.

Don't bother trying to make sense of libertarianism. It's literally just a bunch of manchildren who are so upset over the social contract that they'd shut down every program that got us where we are.

It's no coincidence "taxation is theft" didn't take off until our infrastructure was in place long enough to be taken for granted

You don't even understand the words you use. We'd need to open an entire school system just for you, memeflag.

I'm not even a libertarian but I'd still love to hear your counter point.

Depends on what you mean. You should have the right to an attorney if you can afford one, but there should be no public defender system. As a criminal defense attorney myself, I hate the PD system. Fuckers take money out of my paycheck by being a free service AND I have to pay their salaries with my taxes? Fuckem.

How much nuance do you imagine comes with fraud specifically?
What is the information density of current fraud law? Do you know? How could a regular person ever figure that out, to even know if the law could be simpler?

Nope. Unless of course, you want to totally change the definition, and then re-create the same case law where we are today.

If the government's gonna impose it's own sense of justice on me you bet your ass I expect them to provide someone to represent me in their terms.

what? Not at all.

>sounds like what sickness does
Not even a little. You're conflating a legal understanding with your own liberal interpretation of a word. You can't just take a word used in two entirely different contexts, that give it entirely different meanings, and try and slip it into conversation and think no one will notice.

That's called being dishonest.

No one is trying to obfuscate anything. The lay person lacks context, and attempting to change the language would fundamentally alter how the law operates.

No one benefits from laws so complex they cannot be understood and so volumous they cannot be read.

So you think you've described how current american law pans out in real life? Do you think that complexity ensures the justness of any given law? Does that complexity prevent powerful people from escaping justice now?

it's very complicated because the world is complicated; you can't ignore hundreds of years of legal precedent just because there's a lot of it. if you think you have a viable solution besides "let's just have less laws regardless of how many legal situations will have to be tried again only to lead to the same conclusion" then go ahead and tell us.

How do you know?

I'm not a lolbertarian, but the state shouldn't give you a lawyer. If you can't afford one, you can defend yourself.

Just write the laws more simply and with plainer language. Going into technical language where necessary, but extremely limited.

Describe the spirit of the regulation meant to be followed, and then describe the machinery of the law in technical language so that agents who operate the law in society understand how to do what they need to do, but that anyone could understand what the law is meant to do and the contexts in which it is applied.

No one benefits from laws that are wide open to various forms of interpretation that no two people can be assured to receive the same ruling, just as no one benefits from a populace which is so jaded and disinterested that they refuse to even try.

Your reading comprehension is poor. Of course there are unjust laws which are complex. Complexity assures that the law is qualifed and prepared to answer questions based on context. No, laws which are not simple do not prevent powerful people from escaping justice. It is just that, shallow laws are a surefire way to make sure that the justice system is unequal and even more people escape justice.

...because that is what happened in the past? We did not start out with complicated laws. We started out with simple definitions, which by necessity became more complex over time. Do you honestly think that they wrote the complex definition for fraud in 1810?

If you hold the belief that nobody has a right to your labor, and consequently that you have no right to another's labor, then yes: you do not have a right to counsel.

>Just take this extremely complicated thing and make it less complicated
>t. not a lawyer

arguing that you don't need an expert to guide you through a difficult process is asinine and ignorant of modern reality. it's expecting people to be experts at too many things during a time in human evolution where specialization is necessary for success.

would you say the human body is too complex and we need to simplify things because you shouldn't need a doctor to fix any of your health problems? or would you admit that the human body is incredibly complex and unless you've spent a decade studying it then you would have no idea what you're doing when it comes to treating it?

if you want simple laws then go back to simple society. live like the amish where there aren't hundreds of different types of businesses or thousands of different types of crimes. otherwise stfu about how complicated everything is. we're all stuck in the same complex world and you're insane if you think you can or should do literally everything for yourself.

>No one is trying to obfuscate anything.
Then they've succeeded where they haven't tried.

>attempting to change the language would fundamentally alter how the law operates
Changing how you explain a concept doesn't change the concept. If you're claiming the legal system is hinged on very specific word choices with very specific definitions that requires years of study to grasp the nuances of then you're only arguing for my position because you've basically said that the rules of society can only be known by a small elite and everyone else needs to appeal to them in any matter where they have to interact by way of these rules which is not conducive to any free or open society.

Stop asking these stupid leading questions and state your argument.

>At what point do we say that a sale is complete? That a delivery is complete? Do we have the right to self-defense? Where does that begin and end?
Do you really need such simple concepts explained to you? What a child you are.

Why should the law be difficult? The average person only interacts with the tinniest little piece of the law that essentially contains prohibitions on what they can and cannot do. The only reason you would need someone to explain these to you are if the majority of these prohibitions are arbitrary and unreasonable making them counter-intuitive.

Also as an aside you don't need a doctor to fix the vast majority of your health problems. You don't bring your car to your mechanic to check your tire pressure do you?

you just implied that a regular person could never know if the law is too long or complicated. so if you're a regular person, did you just imply that you have no idea what you're talking about?

>arbitration is for big companies to screw over small companies, and customers
That's just BINDING arbitration in consumer contracts. Arbitration in it of itself is used for everything in some states and non-binding arbitration is totally fair.

.t lawyer in a state that mandates non-binding arbitration on all civil cases

You misunderstand what the right to council is. It is the right TO HAVE a lawyer . It is the right to SPEAK with a lawyer. Until Gideon v. Wainwright (1963 SC case) the court was not required to provide the criminal an attorney. Beforehand if you couldn't afford an attorney you had to either defend yourself or find another way to pay for one. It originally wasn't a positive right.

So the complexity of our current laws do not remedy the problems caused by simple laws. I have to ask if you dont have a sense that elite people escape justice via esoteric interpretations and verses in law that normal people dont have access to? I suppose I take it for granted that that's how it is, and I can't really imagine how even a marginally simpler legislature would make our current situation worse.


Yeah I kind of do think they wrote a complex definition, and various laws relating to, fraud even in 1810. Even the code of hamarabi gets kind of complicated with the way it weighs the values of various crimes to discover an appropriate punishment.

I mean we had professional lawyers and the right to an attorney (because you need one) since the united states was a nation, and it's laws are based on preexisting laws. I don't see at all a strong correlation between modernity and complicated laws. Except that with the advent of computers it's easier to actually make them and keep track of them.

Can we got more of the boy/girl in OP's pic?

a bacterial infection forces you to be sick against your will, how is that not coercion by microorganisms? that definition is from mirriam websters.

socialism doesn't work. the government cannot manage the healthcare industry to deliver healthcare to people. it will always go broke and then there will be no healthcare.
industries must grow and innovate to meet the needs of people, not go broke and collapse. Only the free market works.

No, because sickness is a biological construct and the law is a social construct. You are not granted rights based on biology, you have rights granted based on ideology.

Yes. I know. You're taking a legal definition of coerce and conflating it with layman's to try and make a point

souce on this pls!!!!!!!

legalese is written in order to have very exact meanings and most laws have a definitions section at the beginning in order to ensure that there are few problems with interpretation. unfortunately, words can have many meanings and can be applied to numerous situations with varying degrees of accuracy. blaming law instead of the ambiguity of language in general is not going to go anywhere.

Interesting idea, but a false equivalency.
Counsel is necessary to provide a fair means to mediate conflict between citizens, whereas healthcare doesn't involve a dispute that necessarily affects anyone else.

If we didn't have counsel, that we lose the efficacy of trial by jury and due process more generally.

Why is the task more difficult than this? Is the obstacle just a series of exceptions to the law? Why is it we can intuit these exceptions but can't describe this intuition plainly?

Bam.
>Just described US federal law circa last 80 years or more.

I didn't imply anything. I ASKED you if that's what you think.

this is why paper bags exist

>changing how you explain a concept does not change the concept
That's where you're wrong, kiddo. The law does not exist outside of words. We have free speech, but we do not know what 'free' and 'speech' mean until we have carefully defined them. Laymen can understand them perfectly fine, which is how they eventually become lawyers and legislators. If you wanted to understand Wyoming's murder laws, you could probably do it in a week or two. If you want to have a license to defend someone from a murder accusation, you must understand the reasoning behind the laws, what they historically have meant, and how to admit certain pieces of evidence to make a client look not guilty.

It is not only good that years of study are required, but necessary. We could erase all laws, and have only one law that says 'don't do bad things', but all that would do is cause panic in the short term and the re-creation of many current laws in the long term. Originally, the laws were simple, so that many people could understand them. They became more complex over time as situations changed and more scenarios came to fruition.

And in a capitalist society, we have to appeal to a small elite most of the time anyways, so I am not sure where you are going.

I sure do. Go for it.

but now it is

are you serious? every time you exit your house you interact with numerous public and private property laws. want to throw eggs at your neighbor's house? illegal. want to walk on this public sidewalk? legal unless a sign has made you aware of a prohibition. did you wear clothes outside? if not, illegal. that air you're breathing? cleaner because of environmental laws.

you are a silly person who has no clue what they're talking about.

sure, you can go to a blood lab and order your own yearly blood work without a doctor, but that doesn't change anything. the human body is very complex and doctors are needed to handle all the possible situations that can arise. the law is complex and lawyers are needed to handle all the possible situations that can arise.

You sound like a complete moron, they're so simple.
>sale ends
When you pay for something
>delivery ends
When you receive your order
>self-defense
When your liberty and life are threatened, and you stop your attacker

>blaming law instead of the ambiguity of language
There are plenty of examples of language formatted to have near zero ambiguity, Simplified Technical English is a notable example. Any ambiguity in law is the result of a system that hasn't been properly designed.

It works for the legal system apparently

Not to mention sale and delivery ending is something that can and generally should be defined by custom or contract, it doesn't need to be written in law itself.

I'm not against using exacting language in law. How about this:
It's not about the internal complexity of specific laws but the complexity of the law in its entirety. Even lawyers have to have specialties. It's not possible for any one person to completely understand all of their obligations to the law. However we are all bound too to, explicitly in spite of this fact.

Can confirm...
t. 2012 lolberg

fine, let's go back to the original post: >the government is coercing you into a position where you must be represented.

is it government or society? does society elect the government in order to protect itself and thus the laws being enforced are for the collective good? when you defraud someone, is it the government coercing you into a courtroom or is that victim using the government to coerce you into a courtroom?

Yes, writing a complex law is not a panacea. I did not figure that I would have to explain this, but here we are.

Right, elite people get away with crimes as a function of their eliteness, not the laws themselves. Simpler words have wider definitions. "Get" has hundreds of different meanings, whereas "writ of habeas corpus" is far more narrow. Should we use words like "get" frequently in our laws, we can logically expect that these elites can use the definitions that are favorable to them, and will get away with more crimes.

Modernity means more time for unexpected scenarios to happen, and more technology that needs to be adjudicated upon.

Why aren't you using your computer, which is so good at tracking laws, to look up the laws? :^)

The government creates your need for a lawyer. Therefore, they have a duty to provide you with one. It's no more of a positive right than the right to food while you are in jail.

Those are also good points, sales are private enterprises. Also, self-defense explains itself.
Commieposters are either genuine retards or just meming, I know this because I click that memeflag more than any other.