Embed Notice

@Charles_in_Charge @Humpleupagus @ceo_of_monoeye_dating @Paulyfrog64 yeah, that works - for a little while

the reason we came up with "laws" in the first place, preferring them to "trial by combat", is because the latter is an inherently unfair system: an 6'8" 350-lb MMA dude can do whatever the fuck he wants, whether good or bad, and everybody else just has to live with it

this is not conducive to the stable social contract identified in "The Fuck Rate Is About To Implode", namely, that "mid men get pussy and everybody else gets core infrastructure"; without some way to enable people to relax and enjoy their livelihoods - which in most cases do not, and probably should not, involve personal combat - human progress screeches to a halt

the idea of an impartial process is acceptable and achieves this goal, but unfortunately is meta-stable; it cannot exist longterm without being corrupted absent "extra-systemic corrections" (things not "thinkable" or "allowable" within the context of the system itself, or in other words, what Jefferson referred to as "watering the tree of Liberty") to bring it back in line with its own ideals

a "lawyer", in the idealized case, is someone who understands what the law is, understands what it is for, and understands the fact that all solutions in this world are imperfect but that it is incumbent upon the person in a position of privilege and power to use that power in "right" ways

it is not someone whose skill is amorally twisting rulesets into desired outcomes (i.e. a jew)