Perspectives of an Objectivist Law Student

Waiver of Filing Fees

2005-02-01T13:04:00.000-06:00

Some people would contend that it is inequitable and unjust to have filing fees for indigent plaintiffs: without money, for instance, and indigent cannot get rid of his debts in a Bankruptcy proceeding.

However, I approach this argument from a different angle. Bankruptcy is NOT an absolute right, as some might contend. Whether one is for or against it is irrelevant, becuase it exists and will continue to exist. But it is a privelege, and as such is subject to certain stipulations.

The bankruptcy court was designed to be self-sufficient, to some extent, and as such it runs on the money people have to put into it. To ignore the requirment of fees is to ignore this legislative intent.

This contrasts to the concept of fundamental rights. Bankruptcy is not a right, it is a privelege, and like most priveleges, it must be paid for in some manner.

Minority Job Fairs

2005-02-01T00:04:00.000-06:00

I just received the following sentence in a rejection letter from Baker Donelson in Nashville:

"Because of our firm's commitment to diversity, the Nashville office has reserved a 1L position in the 2005 Summer Associate Class for a candidate from the Nashville Minority Job Fair.... If you should have an interest in one of these other five cities, please notify me."

That certainly sound "quota"ish to me.

How can anyone expect racial discrimination to fade as we continue to promote race based policies in society? We can all agree skin color should not be an issue in our country; why must we serve to prolong its existence then?

Welcome to the Objectivist Law Student Perspectives!

2005-01-31T21:45:00.000-06:00

As a first year law student, I am continually finding that which I believe, as an Objectivist, to be in conflict with the application of the law and the decisions reached by courts. I have, for some time, wanted to begin a Blog to encourage a discussion on the topics we cover in class.

For instance, when the government should exist at its most basic level to protect the interactions of citizens, why is so little credence given by the courts to adherence to contracts? In particular, despite the strong economic grounding of the Efficient Breach Hypothesis, which is so readily taught and applied, is it appropriate that people should be able to break the promises that they make? Is this acceptable considering that fact that courts will often give the difference in prices (i.e. the profit made by the breaching party) to the party who has been breached against?

More issues to come. Thanks