• survirtual@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    7 hours ago

    What is it you’re an expert of, here? Game theory? Or do you mean you’re a lawyer?

    If you’re a lawyer, you are not an expert on formulating a society. We’ve let lawyers run things for a long time and look at where it’s gotten us.

    The system needs to promote positive, human centric outcomes. Maybe having clients with that much wealth isn’t fundamentally a positive outcome? Perhaps that idea needs to be reworked as a part of the oncoming changes?

    In other words, anyone dealing with a certain threshold of wealth needs to hire human beings in order to raise their cap. I like this idea a lot actually. The bigger the clients, the more they have to pay if they want legal representation. For billionaires, legal representation would cost an absolute fortune and provide income to thousands of people.

    Honestly I haven’t thought of this pattern but the more I think about it, the better it seems.

    • BeeegScaaawyCripple@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 hours ago

      Maybe having clients with that much wealth isn’t fundamentally a positive outcome?

      let’s remove the ability of people to sue for damages when they’re injured, that’s ALSO a positive societal goal.

      where do you think that money came from?

      • survirtual@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 hours ago

        Preferably, yes. Ideally, we are all insured by a single payer system and in the case of an accident, people are compensated via that insurance.

        No legal bank account needed.

        Next point?