# Pro bono bullshit **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [September 9, 2010, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132 "2010-09-09T02:43:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 28
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2010, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/541 "2010-09-17T23:12:28Z")
please. I work 60 or so hours a week providing extremely valuable services to society, yet somehow I’m a parasite because I won’t provide those services for free. That’s idiotic. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2010, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/542 "2010-09-17T23:30:02Z")
> [@Fuji](#): > > > [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > > > It’s really sad that all I want to do is order my life around making fair exchanges instead of force and just for that you idiots give me grief. > > And yet, the only obligations that you apparently recognize as real are those which involve an externally imposed penalty, i.e. force. Again, you are conflating two things: how rules work and how cosmic sense of right and wrong works. A rule only requires something if there are consequences to not doing the something. But one is perfectly free to believe that something is right or wrong to do in some cosmic sense even if there are no consequences attached to it. I’m not talking about whether not doing pro bono is immoral because I think that’s a useless thing to talk about–people can disagree, and there are no consequences to making the determination. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2010, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/543 "2010-09-17T23:39:58Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > ARTICLE VIII. ILLINOIS RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT OF 2010 > [https://www.iardc.org/newrules2010.htm](https://www.iardc.org/newrules2010.htm) > > > [@](#): > > > > [6A] It is also the responsibility of those licensed as officers of the court to use their training, experience, and skills to provide services in the public interest for which compensation may not be available. It is the responsibility of those who manage law firms to create an environment that is hospitable to the rendering of a reasonable amount of uncompensated service by lawyers practicing in that firm. Service in the public interest may take many forms. These include but are not limited to pro bono representation of persons unable to pay for legal services and assistance in the organized bar’s efforts at law reform. An individual lawyer’s efforts in these areas is evidence of the lawyer’s good character and fitness to practice law, and the efforts of the bar as a whole are essential to the bar’s maintenance of professionalism. To help monitor and quantify the extent of these activities, and to encourage an increase in the delivery of legal services to persons of limited means, Illinois Supreme Court Rule 756(f) requires disclosure with each lawyer’s annual registration with the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of the approximate amount of his or her pro bono legal service and the approximate amount of qualified monetary contributions. See also Committee Comment (June 14, 2006) to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 756(f). > > > > [6B] The absence from the Illinois Rules of a counterpart to ABA Model Rule 6.1 regarding pro bono and public service should not be interpreted as limiting the responsibility of lawyers to render uncompensated service in the public interest. Rather, the rationale is that this responsibility is not appropriate for disciplinary rules because it is not possible to articulate an appropriate disciplinary standard regarding pro bono and public service. > > SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS > RULES ON ADMISSION AND DISCIPLINE OF ATTORNEYS > ARTICLE VII. > PART B. REGISTRATION AND DISCIPLINE OF ATTORNEYS > Rule 756 > [http://www.iardc.org/rulesSCT.html](http://www.iardc.org/rulesSCT.html) > > > [@](#): > > > > (f) Disclosure of Voluntary Pro Bono Service. As part of registering under this rule, each lawyer shall report the approximate amount of his or her pro bono legal service and the amount of qualified monetary contributions made during the preceding 12 months. > > . . . . > > (g) Removal from the Master Roll. On February 1 of each year the Administrator shall remove from the master roll the name of any person who has not registered for that year. A lawyer will be deemed not registered for the year if the lawyer has failed to provide trust account information required by paragraph (d) of this rule or if the lawyer has failed to provide information concerning malpractice coverage required by paragraph (e) or information on voluntary pro bono service required by paragraph (f) of this rule. Any person whose name is not on the master roll and who practices law or who holds himself or herself out as being authorized to practice law in this State is engaged in the unauthorized practice of law and may also be held in contempt of the court. > > . . . . > > Committee Comment > > (June 14, 2006) > > Paragraph (f) is derived from the findings of the Special Supreme Court Committee on Pro Bono Publico Legal Service. The Special Committee recognized the vast unmet and burgeoning legal needs of persons of limited means in Illinois, and the unique role that lawyers play in providing greater access to these critical legal services. Therefore, the rule is established to serve as an annual reminder to the lawyers of Illinois that pro bono legal service is an integral part of a lawyer’s professionalism. > > Through this annual reminder, the primary intended goal is to increase the delivery of legal services directly to persons of limited means in paragraph (f)(1)(a). While the provision of legal services as defined in the other categories is laudable and beneficial to local communities and various organizations, the vast unmet need calls out for increased direct legal services to persons of limited means and support of the organizational infrastructure providing those legal services. > > Paragraph (f) is not intended to impose upon lawyers a mandatory duty to provide pro bono service but, rather, is intended to impose a mandatory reporting requirement. The rule was drafted to encompass a broad spectrum of pro bono legal opportunities, including not only traditional services, but also training and monetary contributions. > > So there we have it. There is no penalty for Rand Rover: > > 1. failing to meet his “responsibility” to provide pro bono services, > > 2. failing “to demonstrate good character and fitness to practice law” through providing pro bono services, > > 3. failing to participate in pro bono “efforts of the bar [that] as a whole are essential to the bar’s maintenance of professionalism,” > > 4. failing to provide pro bono services that are “an integral part of a lawyer’s professionalism,” > > 5. failing to provide alternate pro bono services in lieu of pro bono representation, such as “training and monetary contributions,” > as long as he faithfully reports his failure to offer pro bono services each year in his “annual registration with the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission.” > > Rand Rover, do you agree with my conclusion that you have failed to meet your professional responsibilities with regard to pro bono services, and that there is no penalty for such failure because “it is not possible to articulate an appropriate disciplinary standard regarding pro bono and public service?” I agree that I have failed to do something that the preamble to the rules says lawyers have a responsibility to do. ---
**Author:** ![Martini\_Enfield](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/martini_enfield/32/11123_2.png) [@Martini\_Enfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martini_Enfield)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2010, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/544 "2010-09-18T01:02:10Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Martini, what would you like me to do that I have not already done? For a start, explain why you’re allowed to read rules and decide what they do or do not require, yet I’m not. > [@](#): > > We are all reading the same very plain words and arriving at different meanings. You’re the one who appears to be arriving at a different meaning. The other posters here appear to be reaching the same conclusions that I have; ie the rules do require pro bono but- since nothing will be done about it if you fail to comply- you’ve decided it doesn’t count. > [@](#): > > Also, the burden is on you to prove your assertion, I don’t have the burden to disprove it. All you have offered in the way of argument ius “sure looks like it requires pro bono to me.” It looks like it require pro bono to me _because it says, in plain English, that lawyers in your jurisdiction are required to do pro bono_. Since we’re playing the “Land Of Make Believe” scenario, what if The Rules (either Legally or as Corporate Policy which was binding on you) changed whereby lawyers who did not do pro bono would be disbarred/struck off? Would you do pro bono (begrudgingly) or change careers? ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2010, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/545 "2010-09-18T01:12:43Z")
Martini, Let’s imagine a hypothetical set of rules for posting on the SDMB. Every person who creates an account is required to agree to obey the rules. The punishment for disobeying the rules is suspension of posting privileges (either for a definite period or indefinitely). Here are the rules: 1. A poster may not post copyrighted material. 2. A poster may not say dirty words outside of the pit. 3. A poster should aspire to post witty remarks to other people’s posts. A failure to post witty remarks will not result in suspension of posting privileges. Now, Poster X has never posted a witty remark and steadfastly refuses to do so. Has Poster X violated a rule that he agreed to abide by? ---
**Author:** ![Martini\_Enfield](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/martini_enfield/32/11123_2.png) [@Martini\_Enfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martini_Enfield)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2010, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/546 "2010-09-18T01:17:28Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Martini, > > Let’s imagine a hypothetical set of rules for posting on the SDMB. Every person who creates an account is required to agree to obey the rules. The punishment for disobeying the rules is suspension of posting privileges (either for a definite period or indefinitely). > > Here are the rules: > > 1. A poster may not post copyrighted material. > > 2. A poster may not say dirty words outside of the pit. > > 3. A poster should aspire to post witty remarks to other people’s posts. A failure to post witty remarks will not result in suspension of posting privileges. > > Now, Poster X has never posted a witty remark and steadfastly refuses to do so. Has Poster X violated a rule that he agreed to abide by? Unless you’ve got a career in politics lined up, I’d respectfully request you illuminate us with answers to my earlier questions (ie, why you and you alone get to interpret rules, and what you’d do in the event that there were enforced negative consequences for not doing pro bono work) before I address the hypothetical in your quoted post. ---
**Author:** ![LurkMeister](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/3da27b/32.png) [@LurkMeister](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LurkMeister)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2010, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/547 "2010-09-18T01:19:30Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > please. I work 60 or so hours a week providing extremely valuable services to society, yet somehow I’m a parasite because I won’t provide those services for free. That’s idiotic. To _society_? Don’t you mean to your firm’s clients? ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2010, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/548 "2010-09-18T01:22:27Z")
> [@Martini\_Enfield](#): > > > [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > > > Martini, what would you like me to do that I have not already done? > > For a start, explain why you’re allowed to read rules and decide what they do or do not require, yet I’m not. You are perfectly free to attempt to interpret a rule. And I am perfectly free to say that you are interpreting it incorrectly. > [@](#): > > You’re the one who appears to be arriving at a different meaning. The other posters here appear to be reaching the same conclusions that I have; ie the rules do require pro bono but- since nothing will be done about it if you fail to comply- you’ve decided it doesn’t count. The other posters are as stupid as you are. > [@](#): > > It looks like it require pro bono to me _because it says, in plain English, that lawyers in your jurisdiction are required to do pro bono_. It simply doesn’t say that. > [@](#): > > Since we’re playing the “Land Of Make Believe” scenario, what if The Rules (either Legally or as Corporate Policy which was binding on you) changed whereby lawyers who did not do pro bono would be disbarred/struck off? Would you do pro bono (begrudgingly) or change careers? In that case, pro bono would be required. I would probably do pro bono. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2010, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/549 "2010-09-18T01:23:53Z")
> [@LurkMeister](#): > > > [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > > > please. I work 60 or so hours a week providing extremely valuable services to society, yet somehow I’m a parasite because I won’t provide those services for free. That’s idiotic. > > To _society_? Don’t you mean to your firm’s clients? When Binarydrone was talking about me providing something to society (i.e., pro bono work or charitable donations), who do you think he was talking about me providing those things to? Society as a whole, or certain specific people? ---
**Author:** ![Martini\_Enfield](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/martini_enfield/32/11123_2.png) [@Martini\_Enfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martini_Enfield)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2010, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/550 "2010-09-18T01:38:40Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > You are perfectly free to attempt to interpret a rule. And I am perfectly free to say that you are interpreting it incorrectly. That’s not what you said earlier. And you still haven’t explained why your interpretation is automatically correct and no-one elses is or ever will be. > [@](#): > > The other posters are as stupid as you are. Or you’re wrong. Look, I don’t like it either, but even I realise that when _everyone else_ disagrees with me then either A) I’m wrong or B) My opinion is the minority one and therefore not worth arguing too strongly for in the face of concerted oppostion. > [@](#): > > It simply doesn’t say that. Everyone except you thinks that it does. > [@](#): > > In that case, pro bono would be required. I would probably do pro bono. Fair enough. Thank you. Now, in response to your hypothetical, it specifically says that there’s no penalty for failing to post witty comments. Your professional rules do _not_ state there’s no penalty for failing to do pro bono, but do mention it as evidence of a lawyer’s good character and fitness to practice. Also, pro bono is not subjective- you’re either doing pro bono work or you aren’t. Wittiness of posts is subjective… what one person thinks is an Oscar Wilde-esque piece of brilliance someone else thinks is dull, uninspired, or silly. Now, if you remove the “There is no penalty for not being witty” clause, then the board admins and community _could_ decide that Poster X is boring and not meeting the high standards required of board participation, and is therefore suspended from posting until such time as they improve the wit of their posts. In relation to pro bono work, not doing it _in and of itself_ may not be grounds for disbarment/striking off, but it almost certainly would count against a lawyer who was facing disciplinary action for whatever reason (for example). Or the Bar Society might decide to award Legal Practitioner Of The Year at a black tie gala, and whilst John Q. Lawyer has the most billable hours and successful case outcomes, he’s never done an hour of Pro Bono in his career at the firm and the award (and cash prize/scholarship) goes to a lawyer who has many billable hours, a high success in case outcomes, and also donates 25 hours a year of their time to helping low-income families with estate planning at no charge (for example). “Consequences” don’t have to be negative- they can be positive too, and not just in a “Warm Fuzzy Feelings” way. ---
**Author:** ![BayouHazard](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/d78d45/32.png) [@BayouHazard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BayouHazard)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2010, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/551 "2010-09-18T01:41:19Z")
> [@Binarydrone](#): > > More than anything it is probably human’s ability to cooperate with each other in a society and to look out for the groups interests as well as their own personal interests that has allowed up to become the dominant animal on the planet. So when we encounter a person, like yourself, that seems to be incapable of seeing beyond his personal needs and hungers we see a person that is giving nothing to the overall survival of the human species. You are more than happy to reap the benefits that have come from all of this cooperation that has occurred and unwilling to give anything back. Moreover you seem pitifully myopic and unable to see the big picture. Like when you give some of your resources to another you are also helping society as a whole produce more and, by extension, participating in a system that will ultimately have more to offer you and your progeny. > > Simply stated, your model of thinking would be unworkable on a large scale and would result in a lot of misery and needless suffering. So you are sort of a parasite. Taking from society and contributing nothing. People tend to have a less than favorable view of this. That was very well put, Binarydrone. That’s why we call it sociopathic behavior. As in diseased social behavior. If sociopathic behavior ever grows past a certain tipping point our social cohesion might break…and the antisocial behavior extant reduces efficiency. Example off the top of my head: states spend millions of dollars to pick up roadside trash from people who either throw stuff out the window or dump large trash off isolated dead ends of highways. My state spends \*\*22 million dollars yearly \*\*to clean up after people who are too lazy to find a damn trashcan or too cheap to take their stuff to the town dump. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2010, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/552 "2010-09-18T01:51:37Z")
Bricker, no response? It would be nice to talk to someone intelligent for a change. These idiots are harshing my buzz. ---
**Author:** ![Claverhouse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/13edae/32.png) [@Claverhouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Claverhouse)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2010, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/553 "2010-09-18T02:42:58Z")
> [@purplehorseshoe](#): > > Okay, hang on. Lemme get this straight. I’m getting two things from **RR** : > > 1. If he works pro bono, or if he works a non-pro bono case, he makes the same amount of money. (Assuming same amt. of time involved.) He does not, personally, suffer any financial reduction as a result of working pro bono. Actually, he does, as he made clear earlier: > [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > purplrshorseshoe, I think what you’re saying is correct (ie, I will not personally be paid less if I do pro bono work), but my concerns about doing pro bono work extend beyond how much I am paid. Also, I won’t be paid more for doing pro bono work, so it would just be additional work without additional compensation. One might feel more confidence had he not included ‘_I think_’, but essentially Rand Rover will not _lose_ any money by doing pro bono, however simultaneously he will not gain any extra payment that he is morally entitled to. Plus, it’s a matter of principle. As to the nullity of non-enforceable requirements, he takes the same position as that of a rugged individualist in a community where citizens are expected by mere custom to clear heavy snow from the public front sidewalk of their dwellings — without being paid, and without absolute penalty for so not doing — _“ **Shan’t !** Can’t make me !”_ Plus, it’s a matter of principle. ---
**Author:** ![elelle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f0a364/32.png) [@elelle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elelle)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2010, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/554 "2010-09-18T02:52:31Z")
So sad, the harshing of the buzz. It could all be such a easy ride, no, if not for the buzz quelled by the simpletons thinking of a larger responsibility. A nice educational character building exercise would be to put some folks smack dab alone in the middle of a desert with a suitcase full of paper money, huge amounts, but no water or contacts. Reality might then ensue. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2010, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/555 "2010-09-18T03:15:26Z")
> [@Claverhouse](#): > > As to the nullity of non-enforceable requirements, he takes the same position as that of a rugged individualist in a community where citizens are expected by mere custom to clear heavy snow from the public front sidewalk of their dwellings — without being paid, and without absolute penalty for so not doing — _“ **Shan’t !** Can’t make me !”_ > > Plus, it’s a matter of principle. Wrong. You are simply and obviously wrong. All I have argued is that the rules do not make pro bono a requirement. Therefore, I am not breaking my promise to uphold the rules by not doing pro bono. I have very specifically and repeatedly avoided discussing the ethics or morality or “cosmic notion of rightness or wrongness” of not doing pro bono, because people can have different opinions on that and that’s OK. ---
**Author:** ![sinjin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ebca7d/32.png) [@sinjin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sinjin)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2010, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/556 "2010-09-18T03:29:28Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > > [@Claverhouse](#): > > > > As to the nullity of non-enforceable requirements, he takes the same position as that of a rugged individualist in a community where citizens are expected by mere custom to clear heavy snow from the public front sidewalk of their dwellings — without being paid, and without absolute penalty for so not doing — _“ **Shan’t !** Can’t make me !”_ > > > > Plus, it’s a matter of principle. > > Wrong. You are simply and obviously wrong. > > All I have argued is that the rules do not make pro bono a requirement. Therefore, I am not breaking my promise to uphold the rules by not doing pro bono. > > I have very specifically and repeatedly avoided discussing the ethics or morality or “cosmic notion of rightness or wrongness” of not doing pro bono, because people can have different opinions on that and that’s OK. So don’t do it. What’s the big deal? This is just a big “waily, waily, waily, someone sent me an email I don’t like, but it doesn’t really effect me, I don’t have to do it, I can continue on as before.” If that’s the case just grow the fuck up and get on with your little life. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2010, 8:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/557 "2010-09-18T08:04:14Z")
I think what we’ve established here is that Rand Rover is not of good character. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2010, 11:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/558 "2010-09-18T11:12:53Z")
> [@sinjin](#): > > So don’t do it. What’s the big deal? This is just a big “waily, waily, waily, someone sent me an email I don’t like, but it doesn’t really effect me, I don’t have to do it, I can continue on as before.” If that’s the case just grow the fuck up and get on with your little life. He thinks he is someone who meets his professional responsibilities. Being reminded of his professional responsibility to perform pro bono services upsets him because it forces him to either recognize that he has failed to meet his professional responsibilities, or else to try to mentally weasel out of meeting his professional responsibilities by arguing that they are not really professional responsibilities after all – in this instance trying to find a difference between “responsibility” and “requirement” based on there not being a penalty. Good thing he does not do barrister work. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2010, 11:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/559 "2010-09-18T11:46:35Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > All I have argued is that the rules do not make pro bono a requirement. Therefore, I am not breaking my promise to uphold the rules by not doing pro bono. The irony is, the only reason you do not consider it a requirement is because there is no coercion compelling you to perform the pro bono. That is why Libertopia will forever remain a silly pipe dream; because when the rubber meets the road, people like you will never do what is good for society out of the goodness of their hearts, because there is none. They have to be dragged in from the play yard, kicking and screaming, to do the dishes or cut the grass. Fundamentally, they don’t like doing things for other people, and they won’t unless they are forced by coercion. That is the weakness of libertarianism. They say the heavy lifting will get done, but they are hoping the other guy does it, because they feel no inclination to do it themselves absent coercion. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2010, 1:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132/560 "2010-09-18T13:24:43Z")
> [@E-Sabbath](#): > > I think what we’ve established here is that Rand Rover is not of good character. _politely feigns surprise_ [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132.md?page=27) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-bono-bullshit/553132.md?page=29)