[1]
Dude
He's not formally credentialed.
Because he literally has no legal education.
This is the part where you conflate not being formally credentialed in a field with not having an education in said field.
Armstrong is a 67 year old who spent much of his 7 years in prison reading about how to get out. Since he was a millionaire by age 15 and also a much lauded Princeton scholar of economics I think probably his intelligence is well above average. do you know how much a hard working and intelligent person can teach themselves in 67 years? It's in the range 2-3 orders of magnitude more you can learn in 3 years at law school. Prison also presents an autodidactic personality with plentiful opportunities for study, especially when one is serving (a record) seven years for contempt of court.
Armstrong debated Steve Forbes and gov Florio at Princeton, on tax policy, so I take this as a sign that he is very comfortable working with policy and law and also a sign that his thinking on policy is taken seriously by some very powerful people.
I do have a legal education.
So you're a lawyer? Or did you just take that one conlaw course? It's not like this is personally identifying information..
I find it amusing that you, who are probably in your 20s, if that, judging by your self-assuredness, assume yourself to be so much more well informed than someone who is literally a one man economics think tank and is engaging in policy debates with Forbes at Princeton.
It is as plausible that you've taken a con law class at your high school and your description of your credentials certainly does nothing to exclude this possibility from consideration..
Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize you had taken a law school class
you learn something new every day. :)
Oh... then how is it that you're so versed in what goes into a conlaw class?
I read the syllabus.
And what on earth is your standard for relying on "experts"? ... unrelated field.
Economics is not unrelated to law. Why would you even say such a silly thing?
read a bit of this debate if you want to get some idea of the level Armstrong is at. It's not a 3year diploma level.
Is this debate about law or economics or both? Are taxes related to law or economics or both? Is Dodd Frank law or economics or both? And what about Glass Steagal? Is it one or the other?
Yes, economics and law are deeply and inextricably related. A thorough understanding of one requires a working understanding of the other. You can't be competent in either of these fields without some understanding of the other..
(Incidentally,... I had a roomie once who was a paralegal and that guy was an idiot I mean I could tell stories.
And yes I know a paralegal isn't the same as a lawyer but if a person can get through two years of studying law and then work in law for years and still leave as flaky and mentally incoherent as that dude I don't think an extra year is going to help a lot so yeah your whole argument that his ideas are not legitimate because he is not formally credentialed in con law is just kind of wild and crazy.. because having creds doesn't mean you're not an imbecile, and not having creds doesn't mean you aren't working at a level which is taken quite seriously by Steve Forbes, Princeton, and most leading economics publications..
But not only that, see that doesn't even matter, because actually it's just a raw ad hom youve made. You can't just be like "yeah but contempt of court so he's bad an wrong." Truth doesn't work that way lol, you know that, even. I'm sure. Arm strong's arguments seem quite lucid and well referenced.)
zero legal education
An NJ Gov and Forbes debate him about tax policy, do you think they do that because he's a dumb guy with silly ideas? Do you think they waste their time debating laymen?
And for the record, yes, I do have a legal education.
Many high schools have con law classes. mine didn't, but it had a introduction to philosophy class taught by a real clever hardass who studied at oxford half his life, so it wasn't all bad. when you say you have "a legal education" that's pretty vague.. is it rude of me to ask your qualifications in this context in which you seem to be relying on them to make your arguments for you?
Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize you had taken a law school class, I thought you were just some kid arguing out of his ass on the internet-
First, I have, so I guess you learn something new every day.
Second, what do you have against kids arguing out their asses on the internet? It's fun. I did it all the time when I was a kid. So ageist! So anti-intellectual! Sad.
Oh... then how is it that you're so versed in what goes into a conlaw class?
Cuz I can read a syllabus....
[1]