That's a notion I have read several times now on HN by seemingly US Americans. While it might or might not be true that your judicial system has always worked like that, when you just accept that as a fact, you are endorsing it. No I don't think that such a judicial system is normal.

> the myth of the law as a fair arbiter of justice

That is NOT a myth. That is what it is supposed to be.

When you start to say "yeah, that's just how it always has been", that IS when radical ideologies start to rise.

How public opinion treats thinks that is how they tend to become. That is true with humans and that is true with systems. I heard it is quite less regulated to become a police man and there are quite a lot of black police mans* already. I heard you have a system where there is a jury that can overrule the judge. Why isn't there a massive influx of black/other-wise-suppressed people into the judicial or executive branch?

* yeah and woman of course

▲ komali2 3 days ago | parent [-]

> when you just accept that as a fact, you are endorsing it

I strongly disagree.

> No I don't think that such a judicial system is normal.

I believe we have enough evidence now to indicate that it is in fact normal.

Americans believe their constitution is written about this - aggregation of power inevitably leading to tyranny, thus such aggregations must be prevented. The contradiction is believing a bureaucratized aggregation of power (the United States government or individual state governments) would function as an effective regulation. We have 250 years of evidence now that it does not. 250 years, and a significant portion of the time a large portion of the population was enslaved. Half the time, more than half the population couldn't even vote. In living memory, portions of the population were marched into concentration camps. Actually, that's happening again. 250 years and the largest per capita prison population.

The experiment was successful - now we know these systems don't work.

Time to trust the American instinct's true origins, in an enlightenment triggered by Western confrontation with indigenous American ideology, best described as "anarchism." Most values Americans falsely believe their institutions are upholding can be traced back to this root of American history, when colonists were intermingling with indigenous Americans.

▲ 1718627440 2 days ago | parent [-]

>> you are endorsing it

> I strongly disagree.

> [proceeds to claim this is moral and just]

> aggregation of power inevitably leading to tyranny, thus such aggregations must be prevented

Yeah true, aggregation of power makes that easier, bureaucracy makes it still possible, in fact large bureaucracy makes it easier to oppress people by a majority who doesn't want oppression, because everyone is "just doing it's job". That's how Nazi Germany operated.

> We have 250 years of evidence

So you had 250 years to address this and are still complaining? /s

> In living memory, portions of the population were marched into concentration camps.

Why doesn't this lead to a social stigma against it and strong opposition against it? As an outsider it seams more like a large majority doesn't have this in memory at all.

Does the whole society has stockholm syndrome?

> The experiment was successful - now we know these systems don't work.

Now you know YOUR system doesn't work. The same you already knew when you rejected the idea that your state is just (Did you?). In fact the United States of America are not the only existing society.

> Americans falsely believe their institutions are upholding

So you think:

    - I am not endorsing the current system.
    - The current (judical) system is moral.
    - The current system does not work and did not for 250 years.
    - The core values (constitution) are against tyranny.
    - The institutions are upholding the core values.
    - The core values being uphold is wrong.

What are you arguing for? Your whole country has some cognitive dissonance (from an outsider view). But it fits that a majority seams to claim they are and want to be apolitical, yet isn't happy with the current state or actively distrust it. Or is the intersection of these circles empty?

▲ komali2 2 days ago | parent [-]

I'm an anarchist. I'm completely opposed to the current judicial system in the USA. Im not quite clear what I can change about my previous message to make that more clear but perhaps with this message my previous can be ready in the correct light.

Normal doesn't mean good... Wage slavery and people killing themselves to make iphones is also normal.

▲ 1718627440 2 days ago | parent [-]

> I'm an anarchist.

Yeah we will disagree on that really much, but I only find that tangentially to my point here, except if you think that this ideas is only promoted by anarchists. When this attitude is only promoted by the rare anarchist, then I find that somewhat "okish". My concern is when that attitude becomes commonplace.

> Normal doesn't mean good.

A Norm is a subjective society-wide agreed moral stance. What you seam to mean is what I would expect to be called common.

That's basically my point treating it normal means endorsing it.

> I'm completely opposed to the current judicial system in the USA.

Yet this will also be the judicial system of next year. These things seem to stay constant even across civil wars and revolutions.

That's why I think you should think of it as THE judicial system. It will be also the judicative of your aspired state (unless you disagree that there needs to be a judicative), if you want it to act differently you need to expect it to act differently, while of course still not being surprised when it doesn't.

Somebody on HN recently claimed, that you can't treat your child as a "X" and expect it to not become "X". I think that applies also the state branches.

When you give up and say it has always been like this, then you endorse the current regime.

---

Oh, and I parsed

> Most values Americans falsely believe their institutions are upholding

   (Most values Americans falsely believe) (their institutions are upholding)

instead of

    Most values Americans (falsely believe) their institutions are upholding

which totally changes meaning.

▲

komali2 19 hours ago | parent [-]

> Yet this will also be the judicial system of next year. These things seem to stay constant even across civil wars and revolutions.

That's a shame then, because that means we anarchists are correct that it is a lost cause and must be completely dismantled, a process which will probably result in short term suffering for some.

I'm not sure where belief comes into it. The fact is that the judicial system is wildly inconsistent and arbitrary in the USA. That Americans trust it and anarchists (and other leftists) don't just means many people are ignorant of reality. Pursuing further ignorance seems the wrong strategy. Ostrich, head in sand.

Expectations are nothing without action. Unless people acknowledge the reality that the judicial system is unsalvageable, they'll just accept it for what it is.

Or if you want to be a liberal democrat about it (in the actual meaning of those words, not the Americanized versions), you still need to be aware of the system's rot to cut it out. I don't mind if libs take a crack at fixing it but historically they reallllllly prefer not to.

	▲	1718627440 9 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> That's a shame then No, you want to dismantle the judicial branch, because of their failures, but you also say you're an anarchist, so people hear you and think you are against every kind of judiciary and will oppose you. Violence will never lead to a better regime. Public opinion does. There might be violence while public opinion reveals itself. Denacification didn't happened by convicting them. It happened by temporarily forcing others into power and THEN raising children, who think differently. > you still need to be aware of the system's rot to cut it out Yes. There is a difference between "The system sucks fundamentally and has for 250 years, so screw it" and "The system is just and should be protected, there just happened to be a lot of idiots in there for the merely 250 years. That's why need to bring back it's glory." The latter might improve things, the former will only cause self-enforcing violence.