I think the actions of lawyers reflect a deeper issue, one which is perhaps becoming our biggest challenge:
We seem to have completely forgotten how to privilege
the long term needs of society over the short term 'needs' * of the individual.
(which are often not even needs, but merely wants)
Let's start a list and see where it takes us: Political policies, the sorts of governments we have, the nature of legislation and the way judges interpret it, as well as the rule
of lawyers#: these I think all point at the same thing.
# Lawyers act for clients. No clients, no lawyers.
And this list could carry on, easily as long as my arm and considerably longer than the reader's patience.
OK: here's the thing: businesses, even the largest corporations, have adopted the same sort of 'me, me, me' ethos. By imperceptible degrees. And it absolutely suits them if (in fact, in my gloomier moments I see them as the major agent for grooming us so that) we are entirely wrapped up in our own fleeting wants and whims.
Just read the thread titles on this forum: "which new iPad" ... "whose furler" ... "how many staterooms" ... "what's the biggest boat a couple can dock" ...
these types of questions seem to predominate over questions which do not result in the exchange of large wads of cash.
And we're cruising sailors ... relatively immune, both by age and inclination, you'd think, from rampant consumerism...
But already I sense the hackles and bayonets of defensiveness rising like a ghostly presence, so I'll hastily backpedal and resume sticking it to commerce:
"What's good for (me) is good for the country" - I forget the exact wording, and in any case, McNamara was misquoted or taken out of context when he said that on behalf of the Ford Motor
Co, (before he became Defence Secretary to JFK):
He didn't even mean it, and yet it caused a real stir.
heard about it, and I was a very small child on the far side of the world.
Today he would mean it, and it would be p57 in the Post or the NYT ... but not both.