It's easier to get people to agree to a process than a result, so processes make it a lot easier for people to work together.
The processes are imperfect and often take on a life of their own, but still tend to be respected, and are generally improved when the outcomes start getting too far from the spirit of fairness.
Transparent processes which involve specific laws are much easier to respect than opaque "wise elder chooses" processes. Especially when there are many wise elders who might have different opinions.
this is such an important point. A corollary that those who control the process in many ways can control or at least massage the outcome (cf. mitch mcconnell)
The normal way to change the process is by changing the law. It's normally used to improve the process when the process produces too many bad outcomes.
Of course, making law also requires a process, which we should not expect to be perfect. And that process has its own process for being changed, and so on.
Would you run a startup this way? Of course not. But stable, transparent laws are a feature, not a bug, when it comes to things like banking.
The processes are imperfect and often take on a life of their own, but still tend to be respected, and are generally improved when the outcomes start getting too far from the spirit of fairness.
Transparent processes which involve specific laws are much easier to respect than opaque "wise elder chooses" processes. Especially when there are many wise elders who might have different opinions.