That is particularly true in the American system today.

1. Prosecutorial offices (DA and AG) are run by politicians. They are either political appointees or have to win election in their district. They have arbitrary discretion on whether to file charges against a suspect, and what charges to file. This means they have huge influence on what crimes are even investigated in the first place. (police don't want to waste time) The DA can also make law-abiding citizens' life a living hell by running them through the legal system (process is the punishment), knowing that nothing will happen to them as long as they don't go too far over the line. So basically what is considered law is dictated by local politics of the day. -> If your friendly community leftists want to lock you up for months over a lawful protest, there's nothing you can do about it. Vote em out? Lol. -> If they want to punish their political enemies (you) through anarcho-tyranny by letting criminals run free? Literally nothing prevents that. We have also seen how corruptible the prosecutorial offices are when influenced by foreign funding. There is NO way out of this while keeping this system and current demographics trends.

2. Speaking of demographic trends, there is no such thing as universal justice meted out by human judges. That's a myth all civilized societies tell themselves to encourage law-abiding order. What we interpret as justice is a logical consistence in rulings that aligns with previous rulings (precedence) and our shared cultural values. There are sometimes extreme or odd decisions in one direction or another, but generally the judge will rule in a way that his professional peers and others in his community will approve of. That only works in homogeneous societies with shared traditions. Leftism and mass immigration destroy the foundations of the justice myth. Once you inject diversity into the system and have judges from all kinds of backgrounds and ideologies that may not match those of others in the nation, people start noticing that courts aren't "just" at all. At first they think it's one or two crazy judges, but eventually nothing makes sense and you end up with competing ruling philosophies and totally inconsistent decisions held together by the flimsiest nod to traditions.

Justice is impossible in pluralistic societies. The only form it can take is authoritarianism where everyone is forced to agree that whatever the ruler rules is just. Force has kept empires together for centuries so it can certainly work if that's the path you want to take. Alternatives are removing diversity and making it clear that the super-majority group runs the country, balkanizing into smaller nations and completely reforming the legal system in your new nation, or setting up a kind of parallel or private law system that takes the State out of legal decisions entirely.

That is particularly true in the American system today.

1. Prosecutorial offices (DA and AG) are run by politicians. They are either political appointees or have to win election in their district. They have arbitrary discretion on whether to file charges against a suspect, and what charges to file. This means they have huge influence on what crimes are even investigated in the first place. (police don't want to waste time) The DA can also make law-abiding citizens' life a living hell by running them through the legal system (process is the punishment), knowing that nothing will happen to them as long as they don't go too far over the line. So basically what is considered law is dictated by local politics of the day. -> If your friendly community leftists want to lock you up for months over a lawful protest, there's nothing you can do about it. Vote em out? Lol. -> If they want to punish their political enemies (you) through anarcho-tyranny by letting criminals run free? Literally nothing prevents that. We have also seen how corruptible the prosecutorial offices are when influenced by foreign funding. There is NO way out of this while keeping this system and current demographics trends.

2. Speaking of demographic trends, there is no such thing as universal justice meted out by human judges. That's a myth all civilized societies tell themselves to encourage law-abiding order. What we interpret as justice is a logical consistence in rulings that aligns with previous rulings (precedence) and our shared cultural values. The will sometimes be extreme or odd decisions in one direction or another, but generally the judge will rule in a way that his professional peers and others in his community will approve of. That only works in homogeneous societies with shared traditions. Leftism and mass immigration destroy the foundations of the justice myth. Once you inject diversity into the system and have judges from all kinds of backgrounds and ideologies that may not match those of others in the nation, people start noticing that courts aren't "just" at all. At first they think it's one or two crazy judges, but eventually nothing makes sense and you end up with competing ruling philosophies and totally inconsistent decisions held together by the flimsiest nod to traditions.

Justice is impossible in pluralistic societies. The only form it can take is authoritarianism where everyone is forced to agree that whatever the ruler rules is just. Force has kept empires together for centuries so it can certainly work if that's the path you want to take. Alternatives are removing diversity and making it clear that the super-majority group runs the country, balkanizing into smaller nations and completely reforming the legal system in your new nation, or setting up a kind of parallel or private law system that takes the State out of legal decisions entirely.

That is particularly true in the American system today.

1. Prosecutorial offices (DA and AG) are run by politicians. They are either political appointees or have to win election in their district. They have arbitrary discretion on whether to file charges against a suspect, and what charges to file. This means they have huge influence on what crimes are even investigated in the first place. (police don't want to waste time) The DA can also make law-abiding citizens' life a living hell by running them through the legal system (process is the punishment), knowing that nothing will happen to them as long as they don't go too far over the line. So basically what is considered law is dictated by local politics of the day. -> If your friendly community leftists want to lock you up for months over a lawful protest, there's nothing you can do about it. Vote em out? Lol. -> If they want to punish their political enemies (you) through anarcho-tyranny by letting criminals run free? Literally nothing prevents that. We have also seen how corruptible the prosecutorial offices are when influenced by foreign funding. There is NO way out of this while keeping this system and current demographics trends.

2. Speaking of demographic trends, there is no such thing as universal justice meted out by human judges. That's a myth all civilized societies tell themselves to encourage law-abiding order. What we interpret as justice is a logical consistence in rulings that aligns with previous rulings (precedence) and our shared cultural values. The will sometimes be extreme or odd decisions in one direction or another, but generally the judge will rule in a way that his professional peers and others in his community will approve of. That only works in homogeneous societies with shared traditions. Leftism and mass immigration destroy the foundations of the justice myth. Once you inject diversity into the system and have judges from all kinds of backgrounds and ideologies that may not match those of others in the nation, people start noticing that courts aren't "just" at all. At first they think it's one or two crazy judges, but eventually nothing makes sense and you end up with competing ruling philosophies and totally inconsistent decisions held together by the flimsiest nod to traditions.

Justice is impossible in pluralistic societies. The only form it can take is authoritarianism where everyone is forced to agree that whatever the ruler rules is just. Force has kept empires together for centuries so it can certainly work if that's the path you want to take. Alternatives are removing diversity and making it clear that the super-majority group runs the country, balkanizing into smaller nations (while completely revolting against the established legal system), or setting up a kind of parallel or private law system that takes the State out of legal decisions entirely.

That is particularly true in the American system today.

1. Prosecutorial offices (DA and AG) are run by politicians. They are either political appointees or have to win election in their district. They have arbitrary discretion on whether to file charges against a suspect, and what charges to file. This means they have huge influence on what crimes are even investigated in the first place. (police don't want to waste time) The DA can also make law-abiding citizens' life a living hell by running them through the legal system (process is the punishment), knowing that nothing will happen to them as long as they don't go too far over the line. So basically what is considered law is dictated by local politics of the day. -> If your friendly community leftists want to lock you up for months over a lawful protest, there's nothing you can do about it. Vote em out? Lol. -> If they want to punish their political enemies (you) through anarcho-tyranny by letting criminals run free? Literally nothing prevents that. We have also seen how corruptible the prosecutorial offices are when influenced by foreign funding. There is NO way out of this while keeping this system and current demographics trends.

2. Speaking of demographic trends, there is no such thing as universal justice meted out by human judges. That's a myth all civilized societies tell themselves to encourage law-abiding order. What we interpret as justice is a logical consistence in rulings that aligns with previous rulings (precedence) and our shared cultural values. The will sometimes be extreme or odd decisions in one direction or another, but generally the judge will rule in a way that his professional peers and others in his community will approve of. That only works in homogeneous societies with shared traditions. Leftism and mass immigration destroy the foundations of the justice myth. Once you inject diversity into the system and have judges from all kinds of backgrounds and ideologies that may not match those of others in the nation, people start noticing that courts aren't "just" at all. At first they think it's one or two crazy judges, but eventually nothing makes sense and you end up with competing ruling philosophies and totally inconsistent decisions held together by the flimsiest nod to tradition.

Justice is impossible in pluralistic societies. The only form it can take is authoritarianism where everyone is forced to agree that whatever the ruler rules is just. Force has kept empires together for centuries so it can certainly work if that's the path you want to take. Alternatives are removing the diversity, balkanizing into smaller nations (while completely revolting against the established legal system), or setting up a kind of parallel or private law system that takes the State out of legal decisions entirely.