(All quotes are paraphrased, as the original discussion was in Portuguese)
The other day a user on a social media platform posed a question:
“Can a lawyer dad represent his son?”
His understanding was that it would be a conflict of interest. Another user chimed in and said that no a lawyer dad could not represent his son. (That’s not true.)
Not seeing the conflict of interest or the reason for the dad to not be able to represent the son, I replied:
“I fail to see the conflict of interest, both the dad and the son’s interest are aligned.”
The user then went on to do some mental gymnastics, as to why the dad representing the son was a conflict of interest.
The user starts by saying that Portuguese law does not allow you work with family members to avoid being unfairly benefited. That’s fair and expected.
He points out his example as a translator, he cannot translate documents for his mother. Completely understandable as the translation could benefit the mother. Original document says she was average, but translation says above average.
The conversation ensues. And so does the mental gymnastics.
At one point we arrive at the explanation that his dad defending him can give him an unfair advantage, as the dad has more knowledge of him, than the other defendant’s lawyer has of the defendant. As such both should have a lawyer that doesn’t know them.
What the OP forgets is that either one of them can have a long time lawyer, can be rich enough to higher a team of lawyers, or simply be lucky and be placed with a more experienced lawyer.
Clearly he takes equalities to an extreme.
Just like socialism does. In order to ensure that no one cheats the system a constant policing of the people is needed, completely depriving them of privacy and rights. In addition to that the fact that people are given things, (sure in theory they have to work, but evaluating that work fairly is subjective to the eye of the evaluator and this impossible to implement fairly) and this creates a state of complacency and that leads to lack of productivity.
There’s more problems like who will police the overseer. What exactly is equal labour and who decides? There’s just too many variables and too much subjectivity to it.
This is how attempts at (total) socialism spiral out of control and end up where they have always ended.
The goal of a state should never be to bring one individual down to the level of the other, or to bring one individual up to the level of the other. Both cases will create a lack of productivity. The first sees no point in making an effort as it will all be taken away. The second sees no point in making an effort as it will all be given to him.
The goal of a state should be to create opportunities so any individual can rise to the next level.
Create opportunities, not equalities.