4 ms·

The unfortunate reality of the breakdown in trust is because the institutions are behaving in a way that would reinforce this. It is easy to look at the extreme

The unfortunate reality of the breakdown in trust is because the institutions are behaving in a way that would reinforce this. It is easy to look at the extremes like Qanon, but even if you look beyond the surface on any institution in this country, it is really hard to be positive or hopeful about anything. For example it is hard to trust in the Supreme Court once you notice that judges (on both side of the political spectrum) have been accepting favors from Billionaires, legally, but unethically. Could you realistically think these judges could rule fairly in cases that involve their benefactors? This was once the highest trusted institution in the country, now think about the ones that weren't that trusted to begin with.

akira2501 3y ago
This is an expected consequence of over monopolization of industry. You lose all the natural power of moderation that comes from the market. With that gone, corruption is left unchecked, regulatory bodies are captured, and collusion is purchased to gaslight everyone over the truth. You also should never trust any court, in particular, the Supreme Court. A court has no special access to facts, yet it operates with complete authority, as if it's process was entirely without error. They are a compromise that only makes sense when all other civil remedies have been exhausted because there is no mechanism to guarantee an improved outcome from their involvement. Which highlights the basic point here, any institution of appreciable size and without competition cannot possibly remain uncorrupted by it. It's essentially impossible to build any government institution that is worthy of "trust."
- semi 3y ago
  > A court has no special access to facts There are facts out there that can otherwise be kept private until subpoenad by court order, is that not special access to facts?
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
    Per my reading, that seems to be different from what they mean. Any court can subpoena facts and the supreme court is not special in that regard.

akira2501 3y ago

This is an expected consequence of over monopolization of industry. You lose all the natural power of moderation that comes from the market. With that gone, corruption is left unchecked, regulatory bodies are captured, and collusion is purchased to gaslight everyone over the truth. You also should never trust any court, in particular, the Supreme Court. A court has no special access to facts, yet it operates with complete authority, as if it's process was entirely without error. They are a compromise that only makes sense when all other civil remedies have been exhausted because there is no mechanism to guarantee an improved outcome from their involvement. Which highlights the basic point here, any institution of appreciable size and without competition cannot possibly remain uncorrupted by it. It's essentially impossible to build any government institution that is worthy of "trust."

semi 3y ago
> A court has no special access to facts There are facts out there that can otherwise be kept private until subpoenad by court order, is that not special access to facts?
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
  Per my reading, that seems to be different from what they mean. Any court can subpoena facts and the supreme court is not special in that regard.