This post is NOT in the context of corruption in India.
We are not tired of pointing out that people of the developed nations, particularly what is called “the West” (Japan excluded; Australia included; Russia falls between the stools), are law abiding. The implication is, let us become law abiding and we will surely jump up in status. Our moral timbre will be enhanced (not that anyone cares whether you are moral or not, the focus always being on “bringing home the bacon” by fair or foul means).
If the above were true I fail to understand whence the not unjustifiable perception that Americans are the most litigious and the US is the most litigious nation on the face of the earth? Is it that American laws are so convoluted, and perhaps incomprehensible too, that people (including lawyers) do not know on which side of the line they are on?
I think I have gotten onto something substantive there! Today I read that over the Deep Water Horizon disaster (Gulf of Mexico), BP has sued Halliburton. So, in a law abiding society, what do you expect? That Halliburton would defend itself. But what have we here? Halliburton has reverse-sued BP! The thing that is crystal clear is neither BP nor Halliburton (by the way, once upon a time, its chairman was Dick Cheney who was the Vice President under George W Bush; talk about revolving doors and corruption) knew what the law was. They are tossing the disaster ball back and forth.
Sure, there is a chance, however slim, that BP, nominally a British company, does not know as much as about American laws as Halliburton does? No, don’t take that too seriously. I would bet that the battery of lawyers on each side knows all the laws (more importantly, the loopholes) better than the other side.
So, what gives? Why this suing and counter-suing (to be honest I do not know whether BP sued first or Halliburton did, but that is immaterial). Can you abide by the rules of a loop-hole riddled legal system? I think not. Then, whence the claim that Americans are law abiding? Something has to give.
For the sake of argument, let us say there is something else behind the frenetic legal activities between BP and Halliburton. Perhaps, the nation, the US, founded on the principle of exploitation, cannot have a legal system that is equidistant from both the exploited and the exploiter. This could be it, truly. BP is arguing that it is the exploited whereas Halliburton screams that it is being exploited. The legal system, not able to find the other stool, the exploiter, has fallen between them! Hence, the nation is the most litigious on the face of the earth. And, it does not know what law to follow; indeed, what law there is!
Raghuram Ekambaram
12 comments:
I'm not much informed about this Halliburton-BP affair though I read about it in the newspapers. I didn't take much interest for many reasons. But I think when the question is really about 'bringing home the bacon' howwhichever way and especially when America which is an expert on that 'howwhichever way' is involved, the law will become what Ben Jonson called it in the early 17th century: "an ass".
And, the ethos percolates down to companies and individuals too Matheikal. That is precisley why you have thick rule books to go with thicker court docket!
Even as effieicient as they claim to be, and how law abiding they supposedly are, and even having less than only one third of Indian population, having a greater number of lawyers per capita, the American justice system is no less burdened. "Take that!" one can shout at the so-called law abiding Westerners.
Raghuram Ekambaram
It is all a question of degree and scale..we abide by the moral law that
we stay together married until, death do us apart..That is moral law.when it comes to such social morality we are the most law abiding nation.
It is all a question of degree and scale..we abide by the moral law that
we stay together married until, death do us apart..That is moral law.when it comes to such social morality we are the most law abiding nation.
DS sir, we are patting ourselves on the back (or, is it thumping our chest?) by claiming we are more moral than they are. But for that, don't we have to agree on some norms on provate morality? That is a thicket I would not want to enter into.
Thanks a lot.
Raghuram Ekambaram
America!!?? It is an exploiting country. The world or its own people can expect only exploitation from America.
Thanks,
Sekhar
America!!?? It is an exploiting country. The world or its own people can expect only exploitation from America.
Thanks,
Sekhar
Sekhara, the question, then, is whteher being law abiding only to be exploitative is moral? I will be arguing, through Novartis and Gleevec that it is not so.
Raghuram Ekambaram
No, sir. The perception that USA is a law abiding Nation is wrong.
Thanks,
Sekhar
DMRS, I have a slightly different take on the US and its laws. They have tuned their laws to the benefit of the already empowered, both dometic and across borders. Their Constitution recognized slaves as less humans than whites, one must remember. They gave voting power only to the propertied calss; they treated bachelors distinct from married males in taxes and such.
Hence they can afford to be law abiding in that limited sphere.
Thanks for coming in and for your comment.
Raghuram Ekambaram
Raghu, I have not been able to find a disconnect between the status of being a country of law abiding citizens, and a country of high(est) litigious nature.Both can co-exist.
The law abiding citizens (e.g.in developed nations)do not attempt to break / bypass the law and believe in buying peace through intimidation/bribes vis a vis the lawkeepers as happens in countries like ours.
But if, in their perception, the way the law is being invoked (against them)is incorrect,being aware of their legal rights,they also approach the Courts at the slighest provocation.The latter is anyday preferable to bribing the system.:))
Aditi, I disagree with you on this. It is a logical impossibility to be law abiding and be on the wrong side of the law (which is what being litigious means). BP says it is law abiding and Halliburton is not. Halliburton turns the table on BP, on the same matter.
As I said in the post, it can, of course, mean that the law had not been written properly. In which case being law abiding carries no meaning at all.
About being aware of one's rights, let me give you a not too dated an example. McDonald's was successfully sued for serving coffee scalding hot. Was McDonald's being law abiding? Why do the US have such a horde of "Ambulance chasers"? Law is no more than a business in the US, almost. You can find "experts"for both sides of a court case. And, I can go on and on.
Raghuram Ekambaram
Post a Comment