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.
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.
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’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.
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?
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:
A poster may not post copyrighted material.
A poster may not say dirty words outside of the pit.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Everyone except you thinks that it does.
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.
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.
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 !”
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.
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.
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.
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.