Rory Sutherland

And therefore, regulating for the universal, when in fact, the great evolutionary gift of the human brain is adapting to context.

is inherently, lawyers love it, of course, because they make money out of this.

Arguably, the legal system, particularly in the United States, has strayed into all kinds of areas which were once settled by two humans amicably discussing something.

And possibly finding a creative resolution to the trade-off that's replaced by, effectively, we will take this to a legal decision.

And that starts to infect, particularly because there's no tort law reform in the US.

And that's partly because, I was told yesterday, trial lawyers are just donors to the Democratic Party because they resist any kind of tort law reform.

This has led to things that should be solved through our evolved human talent for conflict resolution being solved through a totally inappropriate application of legal structures to a situation which is, in many cases, not really adequately captured by law or where a legal decision is made which makes perfect sense within one setting

but which sets a precedent which leads to ludicrous second-order consequences.

So, for example, if you accept the fact that a, I think has happened in one of Philip K. Howard's cases, someone demanded that trees were dropped down in their streets because one of their grandchildren was allergic to the nut that came off the tree.

The argument would be that if you accept that, which may seem kind-hearted and generous within that particular frame of reference, ultimately you've opened up the path to widespread deforestation because nobody can grow a tree anywhere to which anybody could claim to be allergic.

There was an interesting case in England where someone broke into a theme park or some park of some kind

And then, while drunk, dove into a pond, which wasn't very deep, and hurt themselves.

And then sued.

And warned.

In the lower courts, they said there should have been a notice warning of the shallow water because you could reasonably anticipate this problem.

And then it went up to the high, whatever it was, the law lords at the time.

And they said, if you took this ruling to its natural consequences, you would have no lakes.

You know, you would have no swimming, you would have no swings, you'd have no playgrounds because everything would have to be girt around with warnings about every possible anticipated negative consequence that could arise from this part of the environment.

And so what happens is that you've created a kind of idea, I suppose, where the legal solution has become the default.

when it should, in fact, be the last resort.