ONE BIG IDEA - CONT'D
To start, the term “legal ethics,” upon which codes of conduct and licensure are nominally based, has become an oxymoron.
As opposed to you, who is a plain moron. OK, OK, we apologize to all the morons in the world who, through no fault of their own, are mentally challenged. It must be a blow to them to have their physical issues associated with such a dick as you! Look, this is not complicated. Any philosopher will tell you that "ethics" are as subjective as they are variable. If on top of that we further complicate matters by specializing "ethics" into "legal ethics" then the whole thing becomes ridiculous. Yes, yes, we know that they are many "ethical" committees set-up by either "state regulatory agencies" or "self-regulatory bodies", but they are all nonsensical. Don't believe us? Go ahead and compare their "ethical" positions and you will find them contradictory and/or lacking. The whole idea that there is such an objective thing as "legal ethics" or "ethics" for that matter is ludicrous! All ethical theories contradict each other; that's precisely the point of philosophy which uses inductive argumentation and not deductive simply because there is no way to use objective facts! Yet, you somehow believe one such objective theory of ethics exists. Good for you! You just revolutionized philosophy in a manner that about 3000+ years of philosophical evolution could not. Now, if you care to enlighten us, poor, poor average people, that would be fantastic! Camon, toss us a bone… because, you know, your objective theory of ethics must be absolutely ground breaking. We can't wait to be enlightened!
Mossack Fonseca did not work in a vacuum—despite repeated fines and documented regulatory violations, it found allies and clients at major law firms in virtually every nation.
Yeaahh… This may come as a surprise to you, but if MF was fined and was found guilty of regulatory violations and… this is important, pay attention… was allowed to continue conducting business; this simply means that such fines and regulatory violations were not critical! So, according to you, for example if somebody is found guilty of running a red light, this person should be what? Have his/her driver's licence removed? Castrated? Shot on the spot? Look, we know that this is complicated for such a master of the universe as you, but there is a universal principle of law that states that the punishment must fit the crime. What happened with MF is that they got punished according to the grievousness of their crime(s) and nothing more. But obviously this is not sufficient according to you... because you are obviously a master of all legal matters. As such MF should have been… what exactly??? Burned at the stake? Man… you definitively missed your calling. Too bad the Inquisition does not operate in this manner any longer. You would have fit right in!
And as to the idea that somehow a law firm that works within the law must not find allies and clients in major law firms in many countries… you are an idiot! What exactly are they supposed to do, huh? Get bankrupt? Sure. If this is the case, then you stand for the idea that every person in professions that do not abide by your twisted logic and/or ridiculous ethics must simply give up and… then what??? Die from hunger and exposure to the elements?
If the industry’s shattered economics were not already evidence enough, there is now no denying that lawyers can no longer be permitted to regulate one another. It simply doesn’t work.
Uhh… you definitively lost us here. What the heck are "industry's shattered economics"??? Is the industry freezing money bills in liquid nitrogen and dropping them on the floor so that they shatter? We guess not. Furthermore, what are those mythical economic conditions evidence of? That lawyers are making good money? What exactly are they supposed to do? To strive to make a minimum amount of money so that they may barely survive… or even better, drop dead? Do you realize you tiny, tiny brain that economic conditions improve only when people earn money and then re-invest this capital for the benefit of all (yes, that even includes you)? And what has this to do with self-regulation? Again, self-regulation was setup by democratically elected representatives. If you don't like it, why don't you run for president, prime minister, king or clown-in-charge and change them? You know. The democratic way. But apparently not, because, you know, it's difficult to vote for somebody that is not even there! We can already see your political slogan: "Vote for the anonymous whistle blower; you won't see this person but he/she will see you… and will tell you what to do"
Look, you prion-brain, this is not difficult. The only reason why regulation exists is because it is a scam to grab money. Long time ago governments found a way to exact (i.e. rob) people through the expedient process of prohibiting a profession unless this profession pays blackmail money to the government. This process is called "licensing". Look it up in the history books… if you can actually read big words.
And as to self-regulation, who do you propose to give the power to regulate to? The government? The same government that setup self-regulation by law? That government? And let's go a step further. Considering that regulation comes because of licensing and licensing is a government scam, why exactly is that we need regulation to begin with? A great deal of non-regulated professions do just fine without government intervention, and this is a fact. Again, look it up in our reality on our side of your parallel universe.
Those able to pay the most can always find a lawyer to serve their ends, whether that lawyer is at Mossack Fonseca or another firm of which we remain unaware. What about the rest of society?
Really? Look, we understand that your two neurons tied together in what you call your brain cannot process this vast amount of information, but try to setup a serial process to do just that. To begin with, what the heck are you talking about? Any person on the planet can setup a fully legal corporation in a low-or-no tax jurisdiction and open a fully legal and compliant bank account for anywhere 1000 to 2000 USD in fees. People can do this over the internet, no fuzz, no mess. Now, this amount of money is very much accessible to pretty much any person of the middle class; no need to be rich. So, what are you talking about?
Oh, we see. Services rendered by MF and lawyers as such discriminate against the "other" population of society that cannot afford to pay even those fees. Geee… let's think this trough. MF services are required because governments keep stealing our money. This may come as a surprise to you, but any legislation around the world is setup in such a manner whereby any person is allowed to arrange their financial affairs to minimize tax payments. Tax minimization is fully legal, you dust-bunny brain! Thus, if you want to get rid of MF services (and the like) the solution is to deal with the root-cause, which is… that governments keep stealing our money! Simple. Remove all taxation and MF services and the like won't be necessary any longer!
As to finding a lawyer that will serve their needs, what are they supposed to do? Find a lawyer that won't serve their needs? Have their needs unsatisfied? Look you idiot, the whole point of an economic system is to satisfy peoples' needs. Even mainstream economic theories (those that we don't abide by) say so.
And let's not forget "the rest of society" as you sharply put it. But who are "the rest of society"? Simple, those below the middle class anywhere in the world. Now, why exactly would these people need the services of MF or similar legal advice? They are the poor who, by definition, do not have money. They are either not taxed directly (for places where "progressive" taxation exists) or they are taxed indirectly (on the goods and services they purchase); in neither case they can do anything about it… because the government has setup the conditions just so! Furthermore, the question is not why they would not require the help of such legal advice, but why are they poor in the first place! And here we go right back to the root causes, which are that governments keep stealing our money (i.e. taxing, borrowing and printing) and grossly interfering with the free markets (i.e. regulating). As usual, you completely missed the point.
The collective impact of these failures has been a complete erosion of ethical standards, ultimately leading to a novel system we still call Capitalism, but which is tantamount to economic slavery. In this system—our system—the slaves are unaware both of their status and of their masters, who exist in a world apart where the intangible shackles are carefully hidden amongst reams of unreachable legalese. The horrific magnitude of detriment to the world should shock us all awake.
And here we go again with the "ethics" thingy. You're a person of rare intelligence. It's rare when you show any. We already explained that there is no one "ethics" thus there cannot be one "ethical standards"… not to mention the fact that you don't even bother stating what "ethical standards" you are referring to. Would that be political ethical standards? Religious ethical standards? Legal ethical standards? Because, you know, there are many of those. But, it obviously does not matter because they are all being eroded by lawyers serving their clients… oh… no… hold on… they are being eroded because lawyers abide by the law which allow their clients to… oh…wait a second here…they are being eroded because lawyers regulate themselves as per current regulations… oh…well… we give up. Why exactly is that those unspecified "ethical standards" are being eroded by? Any time now, please. We are waiting…
But not to be outdone by such a diatribe, you then grace us with your views on what you call "a novel system". And here is where we absolutely need to ask you, don't you need a license to be that stupid? We really, really have a hard time coming to grips with the socialist/communist/tyrannical/capitalist bias of your document up to this point. Let us see if we can surmise it. You want everybody to be fully taxed, there being no exceptions. You want to impose your brand of ethics (whatever they may be) onto everybody whether they want it or not. And you want all guilty people to be guilty (we won't even begin to ask how exactly you can know they are guilty in the first place). Aha. Uhu. We regret to inform you that this has been tried before and it did not work. It was called Communism and you may have heard of it. But then you seem to be OK with Capitalism, but not with its so-called "economic slavery". Aha. Uhu. Again, we hate to remind you that this is exactly the argument that Marx (the father of Communism) set forward… and we all know how well it worked. You want people not to be unencumbered by "intangible shackles" by "masters"… "hidden amongst reams of unreachable legalese". Aha. Uhu. You do realize that this is exactly what Communism promised (i.e. the peasant/worker political system) and what we got in reality was the Nomenclatura (i.e. an oligopoly - Google it)? So… you want your own brand of Communism? Or Commu-Capitalism? Or what exactly? Because, you know, so far you have not made any sense whatsoever and you continue, unabated, on that very same path.
Last but not least, we are irreversibly confused as to your intentions. How exactly, will the so-called "masters" disappear or be eliminated or the shackles be removed or slaves be freed just by the fact that we may know who the masters are? Hell! We can point to many countries with real dictators right now and that won't make any difference in their dictatorship! Are you talking about taxing this people? And if this is so, again, how exactly will taxing these people remove your so-called "economic slavery"? They will still have their money, and then what? And on a relate topic, what exactly do you think that governments will do with this extra tax money? They will, of course, waste it. And thus through this wasting process, how will governments free your so-called "economic slaves"? Huh? And all this is assuming that everybody with a corporation in a low tax jurisdiction is evading taxes… assumption which is utterly ridiculous as the information that you illegally obtained and illegally released has not produced a massive amount of tax prosecutions… almost one full year after your crime!
And all this is assuming that all those people have their money sitting idly in a bank account… which if you would have an inkling of brain matter, you would understand it is not so. That capital is being used, albeit not to their full potential due to… governments!
So, what exactly is that you want… or for that matter talking about?
Note: please see the Glossary if you are unfamiliar with certain words.