Is it honorable to work for a law office overseeing evictions?

[XTreat]

I would say it is ethical to enforce contracts.

[Danke]

Why not apply to work for the TSA? Good pay and benefits.

[AceNZ]

I'm not sure this is truly the appropriate place to post this, but it ties in to economic ethics, I suppose. While people should pay money the borrow and pay their bills in general, considering that we have perhaps the most corrupt economic system in the world, would I be working for the "bad guys" if I take a legal staff position with an evictions law office? I went on the interview today, and my wife asked, "Wouldn't you be one of the bad guys?" I'd like the opinion of the Economics and Sound Money folks.

Again, this isn't exactly an economics question, but it does tie in to the current financial ravaging our nation is subjected to.

I guess I'm in the minority, but I agree with your wife. My morality would prevent me from taking a job like that.

I support the ideas of contracts, Capitalism, profit, small government and even banks.

But I'm against fraud (including loan fraud), fractional reserve banking and big government.

The banks of today are corrupt leaches, in bed with a corrupt government. Anything that makes either of them stronger is a Bad Thing.

[tod evans]

It is honorable to earn a living.

It is very difficult to be successful working for somebody else if you don't respect them.

[lancer13]

I've been struggling recently with similar questions about what method of making a living is acceptable from a moral and ethical standpoint. Steven Douglas is right - "you could make an ethical case against practically any enterprise". I have worked in the 'Oil Patch' in Western Canada for over 35 years and I will continue to do so while at the same time, trying to change the way corporations and government (the same thing?) function. I would love to find something else to do that puts food on the table but minimum wage is difficult to survive on. I see corruption, greed and ethical disregard in every segment of the population although government gets my nod as the front-runner. Do what you have to but continue to champion causes that can effect change.

[Aeroneous]

law school or any other graduate degree, always consider the monetary cost of it.

Definitely. I'm nearing completion of my MBA now. I spent several months researching the various aspects of law school, and though it's not the best thing for me to do financially it's still something I have a passion for.

[jllundqu]

If nothing else, you can learn a lot, and you'll know better about how to defeat the system. People on the inside aren't a bad thing. My son wants to be a cop. I hate the idea of it, but he says he wants to work on the "never fire on citizens" from inside.

If it bugs you, spend your off hours doing volunteer work at legal aid.

+rep I'm in law enforcement and I have converted my whole team to Ron Paul ideals (NDAA, 10th amendment, nullification, etc.)

Working from the inside can be noble as long as you hold on to your values. Hell one of my in-laws works for a three letter intelligence agency that shall not be named and is more anti-war than anyone I've ever met.

Hold on to your values, follow your moral compass, and go forth and make a difference.

In the last words of Buddha to his disciples... "Do your best."

[PaulConventionWV]

I'm not sure this is truly the appropriate place to post this, but it ties in to economic ethics, I suppose. While people should pay money the borrow and pay their bills in general, considering that we have perhaps the most corrupt economic system in the world, would I be working for the "bad guys" if I take a legal staff position with an evictions law office? I went on the interview today, and my wife asked, "Wouldn't you be one of the bad guys?" I'd like the opinion of the Economics and Sound Money folks.

Again, this isn't exactly an economics question, but it does tie in to the current financial ravaging our nation is subjected to.

No, I don't think so. If somebody wants to evict someone from their property, they can do that no matter what the reason is if you ask me. What's more, the laws heavily favor tenants over landlords so that landlords have to be very careful when they evict someone. Otherwise, why should landlords be forced to harbor someone they don't like? I'm not exactly sure what working in a law office concerning evictions would entail, but it seems like an indirect influence. Landlords always get into this business conscious of what goes on, so they know the risks.

The only place I really find it unethical to work is in the enforcement of unethical laws. I would think you had enough leeway to have your own influence and not be forced simply to enforce the laws on others no matter what your opinion is. I think it's unethical to promote pharmaceuticals, but that doesn't mean you can't be a doctor, even though the vast majority of doctors are influenced to do just that. Making sure people understand what they're doing helps satisfy the ethics question, so it's not always unethical. I would think there was at least some leeway for you to favor a more voluntary approach in your job.

[PaulConventionWV]

I think that if you combined all perspectives and points of view, you could make an ethical case against practically any enterprise, and any human activity, including breathing. But I get the gist of the question.

Under a free market, evictions would be the result of non-payment or non-performance of an ostensibly valid contract, and not ethically wrong, per se. It's just a necessary function, or tool, like a hammer, and is neither good nor evil. We have a nasty, distorted monster of a regime, however, one that is criminal in its inception, as it routinely and systemically converts otherwise ordinary and honorable people into deadbeats, victims, and even criminals.

I could certainly see avoidance of a profession as a matter of ethics on principle, even with the knowledge that someone else is going to fill the employment void anyway. I personally wouldn't want a job with a current "bank" or lending institution, because while I believe they serve a proper and useful function in a free market with sound currency, I don't believe that they are anything but mutated aberrations in their current form--extensions of an absolute monster. But do I fault individual bankers or vilify employees of these monsters at lower levels for choosing this venue as their employment? Hell no. They are completely and utterly blameless in my eyes, just as police who obey orders and carry out obnoxious laws. Which brings me to this point:

The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly. - Abraham Lincoln

For as much as I am no fan of Abraham Lincoln, for many reasons, I do like that quote very much. Your work on evictions need have NOTHING to do with how you would change or redesign the system if you could. If anything, because you do have a conscience at work in the matter, assuming you had the stomach for it, you would at the very least be in a position to make sure that every i is dotted and every t is crossed on your side. And you could, even further, act as a "legal" saboteur in that process (Think Schindler's List).

Police are blameless in your eyes? To what degree does someone have to be aware of what they are doing in order to receive blame? I think there are very few police who are not power-hungry and who will go beyond the call of duty to make sure you know the extent of their authority, regardless of what the law says their authority is. There are very few blameless police, and those that are blameless are so ignorant that they become simply another part of the problem. It's the same way with bankers, except fewer bankers are really aware of what they are doing than are police. Being employed doesn't make anyone blameless in my eyes. If someone paid a serial killer to do what he did, would he become blameless because he was being compensated?

There is leeway in other professions to favor liberty and voluntarism, but law enforcement is a virtually inexcusable profession in my eyes. Being brainwashed into thinking that enforcing unjust laws and arbitrarily exercising brute force is okay does not absolve one of responsibility.

[dinosaur]

I would say it is ethical to enforce contracts.

Yes it is ethical to enforce contracts that were knowingly entered into. A landord still has to pay the mortgage when squatters won't pay the rent. It is unethical to force charity on landlords.