Are “greedy” lawyers the root cause of the rise of “nanny state” behaviour and consequent loss of liberties?
I’d have to say no. Because lawyers don’t benefit from having the state strip away civil liberties and imposing limitations on free choice. Yes, they get to file a few more lawsuits related to civil liberties violations. But, by and large, the only ones who benefit from these laws are the politicians, because they make government more powerful and give government more control over the people. Yes, lawyers get to file a few more lawsuits. But if you think that the lawyers lobby was that powerful, there are far more useful laws that could be passed to increase the amount of work available for attorneys. Increase statutory and punitive damages, provide for additional causes of action in civil matters, allow bar licenses to be portable to different states, and so on. Stripping civil liberties and imposing behavioral regulations doesn’t significantly increase the case load or the amount of money that lawyers (litigators) can make. And many other types of laws could do far more. So, no I don
an interesting question, but let me suggest an alternative. It’s not greedy lawyers who give rise to the nanny state, it’s those lawyers who are prepared to question the state through such things as judicial reviews, against which the government react. Loss of liberties I believe comes from an Executive branch of government that is too powerful (because of the size of the labour majority) and that can therefore behave in any manner it chooses. The lawyers are in fact there to protect against the worst forms of freedom erosion by the Executive branch – through it’s role as the judiciary. This has already happened, when the government brought in legislation to allow them to lock up terrorist suspects without trial and without even giving that person the right to defend themselves against whatever evidence they had. It was the judiciary who held that such a law was unenforceable. I know lawyers can be greedy, selfish, self serving etc etc, but I believe that in the area of civil liberties
In a nutshell, yes. The cause however is more complicated. We seem to live in a world of get what we can without cost to ourselves. If we trip over something, we seek someone to sue. If we fall down steps, we seek compensation from the people who built the steps. What a crazy world we live in. Genuine claims against a third party are now overshadowed by ridiculous claims by people wanting to get extra cash at an others expense. The trouble is, lawyers have cashed in on this unhealthy trend. We only have to see all the TV adverts. In addition to this, we have politicians wanting to get votes. The best way, it seems, is to introduce a new law to make illegal whatever it was that caused an accident. Until people learn to watch where there going, and accept they may be at fault if they trip over, then yes, the “nanny state” will continue, and lawyers and politicians will get richer at our expense.
