3 ms·
I seem to know a lot of anarchists, so I’m very well-acquainted with the idea of a world without the rule of law. Anyway, I think the principles of the American
by tachyoff 9y ago
I seem to know a lot of anarchists, so I’m very well-acquainted with the idea of a world without the rule of law. Anyway, I think the principles of the American court system are pretty solid. Like all legal systems, it’s made up of flawed humans, and I don’t think it’s impossible to both hold it in some sort of esteem while also acknowledging that it needs improvement. That it is unfair to the poor doesn’t mean the entire system is broken (at least, that would be my argument; I’m sure you could argue that the whole thing IS broken), it just means parts of it need improvement.
Let’s not ignore all the ways the court system has succeeded, oftentimes in numerous tiny ways (i.e. cases at the state level that set important precedent and have pretty fair outcomes for the involved parties. C.f. restrictive covenants on deeds. The rulings for my state (Michigan), at least, seem pretty well-reasoned and legally logical.)
- garmaine 9y agoI think you were misreading my statement. I was certainly not advocating for anarchy! Quite the opposite. Life was miserable, brutal, and short before the very progressive step was taken to have police, courts, and he rule of law for common people. It is quite ironic to complain that police brutality and court machinery are oppressing the poor when in fact it is precisely those institutions that prot ct what liberties they enjoy.