[michaelt]

Well, it makes sense that successful people working in a legal field would not think that field is broken - otherwise how would they rationalise dedicating their life to it?

I'd expect cosmetic plastic surgeons, patent lawyers, payday loan providers, NSA employees, beauty magazine writers, oil company execs, planned parenthood employees, NRA employees, parking wardens and censorship software writers to believe their work had a genuine positive impact on society too.

[philh]

The question of whether a field is broken (not working how people would like it to work) is different from the question of whether it's valuable.

There's a question of whether lawyers are a net good for society, and I would expect a lawyer to think 'yes' whether or not that's true. But there's also a question of, how much of a lawyer's job involves being friendly with the judge?

I'd expect a lawyer to know the true answer to that, independently of whether or not [she thinks] lawyers are a net good.

(At least, I'd trust the lawyer more than I'd trust a randomer.)

[TeMPOraL]

> But there's also a question of, how much of a lawyer's job involves being friendly with the judge?

> I'd expect a lawyer to know the true answer to that, independently of whether or not [she thinks] lawyers are a net good.

A lot depends on your relationship with that lawyer. If they're your brother or wife, or your long-time friend, then you'd probably get the true answer. If they're just a colleague, you'd probably get the official answer.

[kobayashi]

Well said.

[kobayashi]

People working in politics, in my experience, usually understand the strengths and weaknesses of democracy quite well. If they don't, and just have an idealistic view of a utopian version of democracy, then they're likely to fail and quickly get pushed out.

So, is the politicking of democracy perfect? No. But the view that democracy is fundamentally broken misses the good aspects that it can and does provide, and seems like naive radicalism.