Justin Schwartz wrote:
>
> Why would be a such a great idea to have the demos tell college
> professors how to run their shop? In most of this country, that would
> result in the shut-down of biological departments, except for ag depts,
> the conversion of most philosophy depts into bastions of conservative
> Christian fundamentalism, etc. All the remaining socialists would be
> fired at once. For that matter, what does the demos know about surgery?
> Would you want to be operated on by medical professionals who were
> accountable, in doing their job, to anything but their expertise?
> Likewise, if I may say so, with us legal professionals. Would you want
> my considered legal judgment, given as best as I can give it, or my
> judgment as informed and limited by what a bunch of people who know no
> law nor how the legal system works nor anything much except that they
> don't like lawyers because we are all greeedy rich crooks?
>
> In my typical, class-blinkered, petty bourgeois manner, I am a real fan
> of expertise. Democracy has its place, but not in micro-managing the use
> of real expertise by real experts. There are skills that require long
> study and constant application to master, and where the opinion of the
> populace has no damn role, except indirectly in setting general ethical
> standards and rules and regulations embodied in law. Don't tell me how
> to manage my shop.
>
> jks (proud advocate of a nation of shopkeepers)
Two flaws - the use of straw men, and a real misunderstanding of the
role of expertise.
1) The straw men: Democray in this context does not mean that everybody
votes on the details of "how you run your shop". It does mean (and
Schweickart agrees) that everybody in your shop gets a vote. That is the
in a hospital, not only doctors, but nurses, Xray techs, receptionists,
floor sweepers, nutritionists, cooks all get an equal say in running the
place - whether via direct democracy, the election of a council, or the
choice of a manager answerable to an elected council. And democracy also
demands that priorities in terms of how capital is allocated also are
set democratically.
2) Secondly, for the most part expertise does not mean a right of
decision making, but a right to advise. For example if I go to my doctor
and she recommends an operation, she has no right to order me to have
that operation, I can refuse, and if the doctor knows what she is doing
suffer or die as a result. But the point is that choice is mine; the
doctor's expertise gives her only a right to advise, not to order. As
lawyer, you should be all to well aware that the same is true for
lawyers. I suspect you can think of some cases where you have been
extremely frustrated by clients who ignored your advices. I suspect that
most of them had reason to regret doing so; but if a client ignored your
advice and flourished thereby you might find ite even more frustrating.
In general, though, I think this is the kind of respect that expertise
deserves - an unlimited right to advise, but no right to order. You may
be the expert on means and consequences; but I remain the expert on my
preferences.
What about expert action rather than advice? Well, if I (individually or
collectively) hire you as an expert to do a job for me, I also have the
right to put constraints how that job is done. As with ignoring advice,
this may not be wise - but I am the person who lives with the
consequences. Of course you (individually or collectively) have a right
as a worker not use your expertise on behalf of those who insist on
imposing constraints beyond those you find tolerable.
**Completely off the subject. Your answer to my question on legal briefs
did not quite give the information I was looking for. Let me put it this
way. Imagine I'm about to go to trial in a civil suit with a lot of
money at stake. Taking your 15 hours a day for three weeks straight
figure means I will need 105 hours a week spent on legal briefs for the
next three weeks. If I have a choice between one Lawyer working 105
hours a week for three weeks straight, and two lawyers working 52.5
hours a week for three weeks straight, would the latter provide worse
legal briefs? Is there something inherent in the task that decreases the
quality of work when it is shared by two lawyers? Because if not, I
would think sleep deprivation would seriously lower the quality of work
in the one guy 105 hours a week case.
