If most problems are "human" problems, how does applying "human" means solve them, when those "human" means are themselves subject to "human" problems? Wouldn't it be more effective to use something that isn't "human" or subject to "human" problems?
Also, how does it follow that incorruptible and inflexible are mutually inclusive?
As for, "human solutions to human problems" the agonistic form of most western legal systems, where professionals advocate for their clients and present opposing views to someone who is supposed to be an impartial arbiter, but whose decisions can be appealed; would be an example. It is imperfect, but able to deal with changing circumstances. And notably human judgment is involved at every step.
No, I meant inclusive :-). Why must "incorruptible" include "inflexible", and vice versa? Though in hindsight, you're not saying that inflexible implies incorruptible (A <-> B), only that incorruptible implies inflexible (A -> B). Why must that be the case?
I'll simply have to disagree that involving human judgment in every step of a process is a good thing, or that the adversarial legal system does anything other than favor the party with more resources (instead of the party that is more correct). Human beings are simply far too fallible, far too vulnerable to blind spots and biases to be trusted with important decisions. I read once on HN that removing human judgment from part of the judicial process, by implementing sentencing guidelines in criminal cases, actually improved outcomes.
Also, how does it follow that incorruptible and inflexible are mutually inclusive?