3 ms·
No one here has commented on the content of the link, leading me to suspect none of the commenters have read it. Which makes sense, this is a short book’s worth
by stevebmark 4y ago
No one here has commented on the content of the link, leading me to suspect none of the commenters have read it. Which makes sense, this is a short book’s worth of content. It doesn’t make sense for a HN post. For the 0.01% of folks who read it, what’s in it? Is it interesting?
- aamoscodes 4y agoTurns out it's actually a longer book: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11318933 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11318933 tldr political systems in other countries are different > Judges are not officials with a position and salary but arbitrators accepted by the disputants. A judge has no special rights,16 such as the right to summon or cross-examine a witness. Nor is the judge viewed as an authoritative source of law. His job is to settle conflicts by applying the rules that people in the community normally observe. A judge who produces verdicts that meet general disapproval is unlikely to be asked to judge cases in the future. > Neither politicians nor religious dignitaries are responsible for developing or interpreting the general law, and, as a rule, neither can function in the law as judge, witness, or enforcer. Folk wisdom includes the sayings “One can change one’s religion; one cannot change the law” and “Between religion and tradition, choose tradition.” It further goes into the intricacies of how conflicts are meant to be handled.
- Tomte 4y agoThis is medium-sized article (and about a fifth of its length are footnotes). What are you talking about? Have you ever seen long-form articles from the New Yorker or so?