[noloqy]

How would you describe the central problem you're referring to? I think the main issue here is that "the system" allows for the possibility of an unjust justice system due to commercial interests.

Everybody agrees that what has happened was illegal and should not have happened, and that it is the sovereign's responsibility to create a system in which the risks of such events are minimized, simply because the consequences can be so far stretching. This can be done by ensuring financial independence of judges; eliminating the role of parties who benefit from outcomes that are not necessarily aligned with society's benefits.

I don't yet see how decentralizing decision making reduces this risk.

[justinmk]

The central problem is any entity that is allowed to raise revenue by force. Which is the definition of a State.

> the possibility of an unjust justice system due to commercial interests.

There's no such thing as a non-commercial interest. Money is not the only thing that is directly in demand. Power is valuable. Regardless of how the government labels its activities, it has things people want; labeling those things non-commercial is just marketing. Trying to plug the holes with regulations and endless "reforms" is a distraction meant to saturate your time.

> ensuring financial independence of judges; eliminating the role of parties who benefit

"Oversight" is a hand-wavy solution to a never-ending problem. The feedback loop is too long.

> how decentralizing decision making reduces this risk

Competition provides alternatives. Lack of competition reduces incentives for providing great service. The state has no competition, and it raises revenue by force, it's silly to expect a good outcome from that.

[apalmer]

yoour on the soap box and not really responding to the issues at hand... there is no such thing as a non commercial interest?