Oh for the power over the judicial system of today, that has abandoned those without the bounds of power to achieve justice as do the wealthy, with their influence of outcomes and ability to sway judges by use of expensive resources that can achieve unequal judgements.

And:

If the goal is greater fairness

People might advocate for:

* Better legal aid so wealth matters less in court.
* More transparent judicial processes.
* Independent oversight of police, regulators, and government agencies.
* Reforms to reduce unequal treatment based on wealth, status, or political influence.

Let the dream match the reality!

Hi Dan,

Has the "LAW" for want of a better term, ever been applied equally without fear or favour, is there such a thing as justice for all? I think not, there has always been a bias in favour of the rich and powerful, both in the making of the "LAW" and the application of the "LAW", its a privileged institution.

Do we have a law which says; "It is illegal for a person to go hungry, and any person who has plenty and causes another to go hungry through neglect, shall be prosecuted by the full force of the law." No we don't, instead we have a law which says; "Any person who is hungry and steals from a person who has plenty shall be prosecuted by the full force of the law." Maybe if we had more of the first kinds of laws, and less of the second, we would have a better society.

I think Jesus Christ was in favour of the first kind of laws, so they crucified for his trouble. That took care of that problem.

Dearest Brother Paul 1405.

And: Not forgetting Habeas Corpus in our troubled times, as the law becomes more influenced by politicians for political ends. Manufacturing crimes to quell opposition voices.

I have added some of my own ideas in to the mix.
As far as I can tell, the author is saying all groups will rally around a leader.
There will always be someone who has a better idea about what to do.
This means that a 'pecking order' will develop.
That is the natural course of events in primitive groups.
But we have replaced that single 'someone' with an elected group.
For it is far better to have many views, and reach consensus.
This is more likely to achieve a result which is both practical and fair.
Laws evolve around ideas and concepts which are of practical day to day use.
We work out what makes sense, and write it down, and apply it.
And when a new idea or truth is revealed, we consider it, and make changes as necessary.
But religion is fixed.
No new ideas.
No changes.
A situation which is totally unacceptable.
It continues because there are those who like living in the dark.
To counter this, people need to be taught truthful concepts from an early age.
Not stories about visionary or impractical ideas.
Science is truth as far as we can discern it.
It is responsible for all the advantages we enjoy.
Let us be thankful that clear thought has allowed us advantage.
A mind locked in to a narrow channel could never have achieved that.
It is odd that some religious persons enjoy advantage, but reject the very things which give us that advantage.
Such as clear and unimpeded thought.
An ability to explore new ideas.
And the right to express those ideas.
We cannot deny our inherent need to explore and try out new things.
Why does anybody try to restrict that?