John, it is rational anger not irrational, though not a lot of the general public get a background sufficient to express it appropriately, and there's been an o

John, it is rational anger not irrational, though not a lot of the general public get a background sufficient to express it appropriately, and there's been an ongoing trend of gaslighters claiming rational reasoning is indicative of psychotic ideation, autism, or mental illness, as a deceitful discrediting and nullification technique to curb any communications/discussion on topics. Some may argue and contest what I'm about to say, but it is well established, primarily under Social Contract Theory (Locke/Rousseau/Kant). A "rule of law's" primary purpose and function is in allowing non-violent conflict resolution between parties and people that are equal under the law. Whenever the "rule of law" fails, it becomes a "rule by law", and it allows no recourse, coercing unequally under the law, either fully, or through byzantine/kafka processes; the social contract then fails, and these intolerable acts grow with increasing suffering until society falls back to a natural rule, which primarily includes violence (there is no other alternative when these events occur). Your anger is a righteous rational anger because these things are well known in legal circles and by historians (its required curricula under political science and philosophy/law eduction iirc, and the outcomes are reasonably well documented in the historical context during several different revolutionary wars). When you see these things happen, with these type of coercive actions within the courts, it is destructive and erodes the "rule of law" and undermines credibility of institutions, until it becomes a "rule by law", which as I mentioned has severe consequences. The more widespread, the greater the severity of injustices and outcome. Incidentally, this is also largely why adoption of forced arbitration type clauses had so many respected professionals against it, not being swayed by the false reasoning of reducing costs because it opened up many avenues for corruption and denying/limiting rights to the courts, which are already limited by representation costs (annual median salary for the population is needed upfront to start a cause of action in many cases, few have this this since they spend it on food) and other things. There are many components of a "rule of law" depending on who you talk to, but broadly speaking it must have 5 things: Independent Judiciary, Equality Under the Law, Laws that are Transparent and Just, and finally Accessible. Arbitration fails these in several ways. Even the existing court system fails these, but that wasn't always the case, corruption and ruin have made these systems brittle. Repeating the same mistakes from history is worthy of anger, and this is a rational anger because of the documented consequences.