> Why should a wealthy person get a better lawyer

The moment we acknowledge that some lawyers (doctors, teachers, chefs, etc.) are better and some are worse, we must by necessity accept that there is no such thing as equality. Because some will by necessity get a better deal, and some will get a poorer one.

> The moment we acknowledge that some lawyers (doctors, teachers, chefs, etc.) are better and some are worse, we must by necessity accept that there is no such thing as equality. Because some will by necessity get a better deal, and some will get a poorer one.

Some analogies work better here than others. Sure, a rich person may get a better chef and better food than a poor person.

But should a rich person get better justice than a poor person? The entire idea of justice is that it's blind, everyone who comes before it is equal. If we accept the fact that rich folks get more justice than poor folks, we are by definition admitting that there is no justice at all.

Not at all, we could make the process random and take money out of the equation. We already do that with some services - you dont get to choose the best firemen, soldiers or policemen.