Tim Worstall

When He’s Right….

…It’s worth our marking the fact. George Monbiot:

Lawyers have an instinctive love of new laws, as this is how they
derive their power over the rest of us. In this respect, Blair differs
not a jot from Margaret Thatcher, Howard, Jack Straw and the other
barrister-legislators. When you elect lawyers, you get laws.

I
have met quite a few lawyers – not always voluntarily – and some of
them are able to perform a passable impression of human beings. Like
teenagers, they are generally quite harmless by themselves. But
sensible voters would ensure that they were never let loose in a
representative chamber. People of the same trade seldom meet together
but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public. Lawyers
are no exception.

Now, if only we ccould get him to read and understand the rest of Adam Smith….

In

10 responses

  1. Martin Avatar
    Martin

    “I have met quite a few lawyers – not always voluntarily – and some of them are able to perform a passable impression of human beings.”
    Has he failed a roadside breath test, an event which has even the most assiduous lawyer-baiters running into the brethren’s arms?
    Oddly, I can make the same observation about professional environmentalists, ‘Guardian’ columnists and other assorted bed-wetters.
    What a sneering prick Monbiot is.

    Reply
  2. sanbikinoriaon Avatar
    sanbikinoriaon

    Yes, but no-one would elect him 😛

    Reply
  3. Andrew Avatar
    Andrew

    Actually, he had a programme on Channel 4 last night in which he exposed, with a good deal of accuracy, most of the environmental industry as a collection of lies and rip-offs.
    He unfortunately didn’t pick up the insight that the only reason scare-story environmentalism is being taken seriously by those who know better is in order to exploit guilt and gullibility for cash or votes, but he was on the right track.

    Reply
  4. Mark Wadsworth Avatar
    Mark Wadsworth

    An excellent point well made.
    That’s why we don’t have binding pre-nuptial arrangements in this country, or at least a statutory formula for working out how assets are split on divorce (like in many other countries) because that would deprive these lawyer bastards from earning themselves senseless on the backs of other people’s misery.

    Reply
  5. Katherine Avatar
    Katherine

    Yawn yawn yawn. Goodness me, that’s original. Strange isn’t it how terribly awful lawyers are until you, say, need one.

    Reply
  6. Recusant Avatar
    Recusant

    Katherine, you wouldn’t be a property lawyer perchance? Thought so.

    Reply
  7. Jeff Avatar
    Jeff

    Monbiot… Right..? Ah well, even a blind squirrel has to find the occasional nut!

    Reply
  8. dearieme Avatar
    dearieme

    “Blair differs not a jot from Margaret Thatcher”: except that she took away the barristers’ monopoly of appearing in court and the solicitors’monopoly of conveyancing. The boy is a tit, isn’t he?

    Reply
  9. squawkbox Avatar
    squawkbox

    A related point might be on “judicial activism”. I won’t comment on whether modern judges tend to be right- or left-wing, but it is remarkable how often it is that whenever they have to set a precedent, that precedent is the one which will maximise work for the legal profession.

    Reply
  10. Martin Avatar
    Martin

    Sqauwkbox,
    So what’s the alternative?
    Abolish the courts?

    Reply

Leave a Reply to AndrewCancel reply

Discover more from Tim Worstall

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading