So you say that people should get as good lawyers as they can afford according to the free market rules. And that government should not intervene and should not make socialist redistribution of resources in the court system.
Did I get you right?
You're being pitifully stupid. If you see my follow up post, you'll note that I criticise you for dragging your protectionist philosophy into something entirely unrelated. This initial post was intended to hit you over the head for being a protectionist blatherer.
As for lawyers, the real answer is not socialist redistribution, but simplification of the law. Alexis de Tocquville described a situation on his visit in America in which law was within the reach of everyone, and that it was rare to find people not acquainted with their rights. In that era, it was not the simplest thing to get rich as a lawyer either.
To put it another way, the Founding Fathers clearly intended for law not to be the exclusive province of specialists; think about the simple beauty of the Constitution, for example. Of course, you don't see this as a regrettable incident which illustrates how far the present law is from the Founders intent - rather you use it as an excuse to criticse something you hate, the free market.
One wonders - for all your bluster about you Patsies being close to the Founders intent, who is more concerned about the Founders, and who simply has a socialist axe to grind?
Ivan