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?
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.
