Probably because the US was founded by the immigrants who fled because they hated the way the system worked in their original countries, and designed a system that's diametral opposed to that, for better and for worse.

▲ seszett 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

> immigrants who fled because they hated the way the system worked in their original countries

I'm not convinced, as the people who designed the US system had extensive exchanges with the ones who ended up designing the modern French one, which became the basis for most of the rest of Europe (bar the UK).

The US and continental European systems were both designed in concert and in opposition to how the old European monarchies worked.

	▲	joe_mamba 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		>The US and continental European systems were both designed in concert and in opposition to how the old European monarchies worked. Don't know the exact details about the US, but if you look at how the some EU countries and the EU is run today, it really isn't that much different than European monarchies of old in practice, even if on paper it's different. Like, you have nobles from the ancient von der Leyen German noble family appointed to leadership positions by falling upwards via no direct election by the people, enforcing unpopular laws like chat control, that were rejected 3 times, by calling an emergency election during summer time when opposition was on vacation. And if you vocally criticize the nobility online too much, they'll ban your content on social media for some BS reason at best, or send police to your house with court orders to intimidate you at worst. This isn't in opposition to monarchies, we just replaced monarchies with another form of power structure that has the same goal: keep the peasants quiet, obedient and paying taxes. There's a reason history keeps repeating itself: A fish coming from water will only know water.

▲ arjie 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Right, that's what I'd lean to as well.

But was the reason they left the legal tradition? In this telling of the story, they were fully aware of the legal tradition being the reason for their unhappiness. But is it true?

I know the original immigrants/colonists were looking for a specific kind of religious freedom they couldn't have, but you must be speaking of the later waves (which are the majority of people).

I remember ages ago reading this paper (PDF warning): https://annesofiebeckknudsen.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/...

It made the case that (simplifying) individualists left for the US while collectivists stayed. And because of the massive scale of the migration relative to the populations, this meant that the two regions were permanently altered. Cool, eh?

But I don't know if the thesis has been supported by alternative tests. Essentially, it's what I feel is true, but I've felt many things are true and been wrong many times!

	▲	Joker_vD 2 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		The original immigrants/colonists were Puritans and their approach to the governing and liberties, well, it can be arguably called proto-totalitarian. Remember, those were the same kind of people that managed, of all things, to push the Parliament to prohibit celebrations of Christmas and Easter during the English Interregnum, despite massive popular backlash. The Puritans in the American colonies had roughly the same attitude: `Christmas observance was outlawed in Boston in 1659, with a fine of five shillings. The ban by the Puritans was revoked in 1681 by an English appointed governor, Edmund Andros; however, it was not until the mid-19th century that celebrating Christmas became fashionable in the Boston region. Before the Declaration of Independence in 1776, it was not widely celebrated in the American Colonies.` There is much written about the Puritans in the North America; their ideas, sadly, influenced the American political thinking and culture a lot.
	▲	BigTTYGothGF 2 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> original immigrants/colonists were looking for a specific kind of religious freedom they couldn't have The ones who landed at Plymouth Rock were, sort of, but I'm not sure how representative they were of the time.

▲ BigTTYGothGF 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> because they hated the way the system worked in their original countries

48/56 of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were born in the 13 colonies, and I think for a lot of them what they hated about the way the system worked is that they weren't fully part of it. ("No taxation without representation")