Re: Re[2]: POL: Reaction to Microsoft Ruling

From: Technotranscendence (
Date: Wed Apr 12 2000 - 11:41:56 MDT

On Tuesday, April 11, 2000 10:24 PM Coyote wrote:
> The corporate organisation known as the American Bar Association
> notwithstanding

The ABA is a government supported monopoly. Without the government to back
its power, it would face serious competition from law clinics (which it
already does in some states of the US*), unlicensed lawyers, etc. See,
e.g., _The Rule of Experts: Occupational Licensing in America_ by S. David
Young for other examples of businesses that use the government to avoid the

The remedy for this situation seems quite clear: Eliminate government
interference in the market. Of course, one could choose the typical route:
Increase government interference to undo the problems of previous government
interventions. BUT that only results in a spiral of regulations, protected
businesses and people, and politics coopting consumer choice. At least,
this has almost always been the case when people opt for more and stricter
regulations. (In fact, I can't think of one counterexample to this claim.:)


Daniel Ust

* Recently, the law clinic at some Louisiana law school was banned from
helping people unless the people being helped could prove they made less
than some minimum income standard. The reason? People were using the law
clinic to sue one of the governor's supporters over, I believe, some
pollution issue. The Louisiana Supreme Court ruled that this was practicing
law without a license -- except in the case of the indigent. In other
words, the court protected the monopoly privilige of lawyers from an actual
competitor. (I believe this was on either "60 Minutes" a few months ago.)

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:09:15 MDT