[3pt14159]

You think their parasites because you don't trust the American judicial system. That is fair, but the fundamental nature of what Legalist does is actually quite good. Justice shouldn't be denied to someone just because they can't afford to afford the legal fees. Sure, lawyers can take clients on contingency, but they are often cash-poor because law school is expensive, so the rate of return needs to be much higher to justify the risk and delayed payment. Investors, on the other hand, lack the information necessary to judge whether or not a case has merits because they usually don't have the right background knowledge about the law or the domain of the case.

If Legalist were launching from, say, Canada or the EU I'm not so sure it would be so negatively received; and I would certainly want it to exist if I were a poor person with mercury poisoning.

[somenomadicguy]

Perhaps I'm just too cynical in my old age, this feels like at best it is about turning the legal system into a market opportunity, not seeking justice. At worst it can be a tool, as with the Thiel case, to profit off of exacting revenge. There is no market opportunity for investors to join in on a defense.

The timing seems to be an opportunistic response to the Gawker lawsuit. Thiel has validated this sort of a marketplace, and being who he is, it's caught the attention of our opportunistic, objectivist start-up community.Of course the next step is to make this sort of market opportunity accessible to less wealthy investors. Version 2 will be crowdsourced for-profit lawsuits. 5,000 people each invest $2k in a lawsuit against Facebook and see a 1400% return in two years.

I feel that this is a direct result of Thiel validating this marketplace, so let me respond to your "If" argument with my own.

If Peter Thiel weren't a cult of personality type associated with our community, but rather he were the CEO of Fox News, Donald Trump, or Martin Shkreli, he would have been absolutely demonized in the HN! community.

We are going down a slippery slope that can use "might is right" to destroy competition, freedom of the press, and freedom of speech. You should see what this same mentality has done to the business world and to the press here in Türkiye.

Class-action lawsuits are already the protection of the poor against mercury poisoning, done on contingency by lawyers who stand to reap huge profits. Now this takes the risk away from the lawyers and turns that risk into a high profit opportunity for a smaller subset of investors.

[endswapper]

Unless we decouple the market-based economy from society, in general, everything is a market opportunity, and technology (not Theil) is currently the best test of this point.

So, we can work together with a diverse array of stakeholders (even the ones we deem less 'x') to effect societal change, or we can focus on myopic, circular debates that defend our comfort level. Our choice.

Shrkeli was defending the economic justification for the EpiPen price increase. He is probably the last person you want to align yourself with unless you concede to being nothing more than a market vulture - not sensible for the maker of the EpiPen. Yesterday/today, the maker is proposing greater efforts to ease the financial burden for those who can't afford it.

Greater access to resources within the legal system, i.e. SimpleCitizen.com, or Legalist, is better for society. If you think of society as an algorithm, it is beneficial to test the variety of available perspectives to determine which provides the greatest societal benefit (not just profit). I think this should be a priority as individuals and enterprises.

[3pt14159]

This is fair, and I agree with your characterization of the American judicial system, but I don't think I'd have any of your concerns here in Canada. Justice needs an overhaul in the USA. As for Gawker, they should have suffered for what they did, but they shouldn't have gone completely bankrupt. The amount was way too high for what they did.