Suggesting you would remove conditions that require lawyers to exist is a nice sentiment but easier said than done. However I do agree that regulation is the wrong approach.
There are ways to give poor people access to lawyers, in fact the free market has already devised some: no-win-no-fee arrangements and litigation funders. It is mainly in areas of law where these options are not available that poor people do not have access to the law. This is the downside to the free market approach to the law - it only works when there is payout to be won (or avoided) and then only if the supply of legal services is greater than demand.
In other areas of law we have legal aid... a more big government/ wealfare state solution which is far from ideal but I’m not sure i have a better alternative.
“Anti-capitalist is a synonym for pro-humanity, pro-democracy, pro-freedom. As with stocks and physics it's not a debate there's a right and wrong answer.“
Well this is low hanging fruit.... but here’s why its a bad idea to argue in absolutes. By claiming that anti-capitalism is the same as the positive qualities you listed - I need only present one single example to disprove your claim. Here is a list of prominent anti-capitalists: Stalin, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Hitler (yes Hitler too). All anti-democratic, anti-freedom dictators responsible for innumerable deaths - all anti-capitalist. Likewise arguments for humanism, democracy and freedom are entirely possible from a capitalist perspective, in fact most pro-capitalist arguments are explicitly arguments for freedom. There are of course moral quandaries around the concept of freedom, but thats a whole different story and to my knowledge no one has the answers.
Being pro or anti capitalist makes you neither a good nor a bad person. As far as I am concerned neither socialism nor capitalism is perfect, however these are immensely complicated subjects and i would be deeply suspicious of any claim that someone had the right answer. There IS a debate and for good reason. Heck the suggestion that there are black and white, right and wrong answers to physics or the stock market (or anything for that matter) is quite baffling. There ARE debates around all of these things - and there should be.
“I only wanted to refute the further unwarranted attack on my credibility by Tim who after failing to score a single point against my position has to resort to ad hominem, straw-men and personal attacks.”
I don’t believe that i have made any personal attacks on you, and it has never been my intent to do this. I’m aware that there have been others that have done this but i do not think that I have at any point. If you are able to present examples of this then please do so and i will apologise.
(20min delay)