From the IL State Bar Association membership application formyou signed:
Not my world, that’s just how it is. People help each other because they want to, without external pressure. Everything else is just an act done for the wrong reason as in your case done for “public perception” (your words).
That’s just not true and doesn’t follow at all in real world, sorry.
We all have ethical obligations no matter what our profession and we accept or reject them in our minds, not at a swearing in ceremony for example. We should aspire to do good to others or at least not bad. If we actually do it and the amount of hours we do is irrelevant and secondary.
RR may not do any this year or for many more years, but may start doing pro bono exclusively at some stage in his life, or not. We have absolutely no authority to judge. Actually I see RR ideas as very mainstream. He only happens to express them which makes people very uncomfortable, like I said in my earlier post in this thread.
We must strive to monitor and critique our own actions and motivations. Be the change you want to see in society instead of wasting your time trying to changing society.
How about you do the 20 hours of pro bono that RR didn’t do? The only catch is you don’t brag about it and you must really want to.
Sure, send all those poor people who need a tax attorney to me. I’m a data analyst; I’m sure I’ll do a bang-up job for them.
Good to see your word of honor is so unimportant to you. Mine isn’t to me, and if I swear an oath, I do my level best to keep it.
You have no idea of the hours of pro bono I do, precisely because I haven’t mentioned them. I have mentioned individual projects to explain the good things lawyers can do, and that it is not necessary to be from a particular area of law to do pro bono work.
You don’t set the conditions for my pro bono work. My employer and my professional organizations do.
The trouble is that there is a significant proportion of the public who are divorced from ethical or moral thinking, and who simply do not want to help others. If these people did not exist, your world might work. In reality, it does not.
Because of these people, we must have consequences, or coercive action (positive reinforcement or punishment) for those who do not conform to societies norms.
For example, it would be great if the elderly in our society were all looked after by everyone on a voluntary basis, helped by their neighbors because they want to, without any external pressure. In reality, this does not work. It’s been tried, and it led to extreme poverty for many old people. So - we came up with a system that took money from everyone (taxes) against their will, so that this poverty could be alleviated.
It’s ironic that if EVERYONE was willing to “help each other because they want to, without external pressure.”, then there would be very little need for government services. It is partly because of people like Rand Rover (I don’t give to anything that does not directly benefit ME) that government has had to support social services.
Your way of thinking can (and does) often work in small towns. In these cases, people do tend to help one another. This is often because people are more aware of the social compact, and are aware that if they do not help, they will be talked about negatively or shunned (which is indeed another form of coercion!) When people are in large cities, they have a much larger degree of anonymity, which then allows some of them to exhibit their selfish, greedy nature in safety.
You swore to aspire to do. Even then its meaningless to do just because you swore to do. You must want to. A very simple concept to understand.
It was a rhetorical question, meaning try to do more good yourself instead of telling others that they are not doing enough.
Thanks for your post. I have no problem with this at all. Only its no longer voluntary.
Also it may be too soon to judge if this system of forced moral acts will work in the long run. ( I’m talking centuries )
Morality however, cannot be forced.
[quote=“Redpill, post:1566, topic:553132”]
You swore to aspire to do. Even then its meaningless to do just because you swore to do. You must want to. A very simple concept to understand.
[QUOTE]
Try reading the thread before you comment, you gibbering moron. RandRover doesn’t aspire to it. If he did, if he simply said, “I don’t have time to do the pro bono” I would disagree with him, but not think him in violation of the rules.
Again, you have no clue how much pro bono I do. And the amount RandRover and his attitude to pro bono does is relevant to me, because attorneys refusing to fulfil their responsibilities reflects badly on us all.
Only 433 posts to 1600! We can do it folks!
I’ll get Mickey Rooney-- someone else can dig up poor Ginny Heinlein for comic relief.
Lassie and Ayn will bark along…
And we’ll put on a show back at the barn!
Remember the 1980 film of Popeye? It 'll be like that, without the cocaine.
Keep posting, fucktards!
My point is that is is no longer voluntary, because the “amoral free riders” in anonymous larger centers made the voluntary system of helping others unworkable.
We’re not forcing anyone to have morality by taxing them. I agree that morality cannot be forced. We’re simply acknowledging that a minority of amoral players will not help others by their own free will, so in the best interests of the rest of us (greater society) , we must take from them.
Will do, fellow fucktard!
He denies taking such an oath , take it up with him. By you I meant you, villa.
Completely wrong motive for helping others. You completely missed the spirit of pro bono.
EL and villa, try posting an actual argument that I swore to aspire to do pro bono. You are looking rather silly by repeatedly asserting that without posting an actual argument to that effect. If you think you did so earlier in this thread, then a re-post would be fine.
This opens another can of worms. People always find ways to escape force, find loopholes, game system, feed ego, put in half-hearted effort etc. We end up worse off.
Especially when dealing with a voluntary service, we should praise good but refrain from penalizing those who opt out.
Ever try telling a judge that “interesting” definition of swearing you have? That being under oath doesn’t mean anything to anyone else if it didn’t to you? 
EP–why do you think you have the ability to determine what is moral and what is not? And why do you think you should be able to force people to do what you think is moral?
You phrase your posts as if you are the great protector of humanity by forcing people to do the right thing. But that’s not actually true. There is no such thing as an objectively right thing to do. All you are advocating the use of force to do is to get your way.
I certainly advocate the use of force, in the form of a brick over your skull, to compel any behavior out of you, since that’s the only compulsion, other than your own selfish needs, that you respect.
When “my way” is taxing people to prevent poor elderly people from eating cat food and freezing to death because they cannot afford to heat their homes… then yes, I am correct in my morals, and those who oppose me are wrong. I believe that there IS an objectively right thing to do. Robbing a store at gunpoint and killing the owner simply to get something I want is not the right course of action. The objectively right thing to do is to pay for my groceries, rather than steal them.
True to an extent. But when the voluntary service is critical to the functioning of a society, and when there are too many people opting out… Then society may choose (through voting) to enact policies that penalize those who do not contribute. Thus making it non-voluntary. It would be best if it were still voluntary, but the “cheaters”
make that option non-functional.
In the case of pro-bono, there are no penalties involved for non-compliance with a professional organizations ideals. However, there are likely very few “free-riders” because the law profession acts as a “village” or strong peer group, whereby any free-riders are strongly encouraged by peers to go along with the group.
Considering his opinion of those who are in need of pro bono legal assistance and his attitude toward the concept of doing pro bono work I don’t think I’d want RR doing any pro bono legal work for me. Somehow I can’t see him putting the same effort into doing pro bono work that he does for his paying clients (assuming that he puts any effort at all into it), and I’d rather have my legal work done by somebody who is doing it willingly rather than by somebody who is only doing it because he’s being forced to.
LM–what is my attitude toward them?
EP–you realize there’s no santa claus right? People like you and prr are dangerous and should be resisted as strongly as possible. I’ll never understand why you are so proud of believing in pretend fairyland and being willing to use force to cause the real world to be more like pretend fairyland.