| | |
|
PrashantRaiFirstPaper 5 - 17 Apr 2012 - Main.PrashantRai
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
A Healthy Distrust | | | This places me, and any other person who fears for their rights when the only check against the power of judges to define (and as a corollary, to limit) what our rights are, at a crossroads. One option is to assuage one’s fears with reassurances that the structure of the United States government is such that the rights of American citizens are not subject to the personal whims of judges that are appointed by partisan politicians (“federalism,” “checks and balances,” “separation of powers,” “the appeals process”). This approach, however, is really just an exercise in cognitive dissonance in the sense that it might placate our fear but is inconsistent with what we know to be the case; additionally, such an approach only serves to re-entrench the control the state apparatus has over us by assigning to it our blind faith in the way that a child trusts her parents to not hurt her. | |
<
< | The other option is to develop protections -- for oneself and for those who cannot protect themselves -- that are independent of the state. This, in my mind, is the role of the lawyer, and is why I attend law school. Such a solution harkens to the Gandhian idea that “Swaraj” (self-rule) requires “Swadeshi” (self-reliance). This applies both on a macro scale, such that populations should not depend on the protection of a sovereign against oppression from that same sovereign, but also on a personal level in terms of the relation between an individual and the arbiters of her fate. I refuse to passively rest my freedom from statist violence on the shoulders of judges. Instead, I choose to arm myself with the law. This is I think at least partially what Eben means when he says that what we gain from law school is not a job, but a license. The ability to practice law represents a power much larger than that of fiscal stability. It represents both a shield and a sword against oppression and violence. | >
> | The other option is to develop protections -- for oneself and for those who cannot protect themselves -- that are independent of the state. This, in my mind, is the role of the lawyer, and is why I attend law school. Such a solution harkens to the Gandhian idea that “Swaraj” (self-rule) requires “Swadeshi” (self-reliance). This applies both on a macro scale, such that populations should not depend on the protection of a sovereign against oppression from that same sovereign, but also on a personal level in terms of the relation between an individual and the arbiters of her fate. I refuse to passively rest my freedom from statist violence on the shoulders of judges. Instead, I choose to arm myself with the law. This is my take on what Eben means when he says that what we gain from law school is not a job, but a license. The ability to practice law represents a power much larger than that of fiscal stability. It represents both a shield and a sword against oppression and violence. | | | It is in this sense that I will never be without clients, for my first and primary client is myself. However, not everyone has the privilege of attending law school, let alone one such as our own. This puts us in a position of special responsibility towards those that do not have the tools to protect themselves from the monopoly on violence possessed by the state, and as a result, its judges. Gandhi made clear that on his view, mutual assistance is essential to self-reliance. Sacrificing one’s license at the altar of capitalism is therefore not just self-mutilation but a loss for the community of people that would otherwise gain from your protection. |
|
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|
| | |