Reacting to the developmental excesses of figures like Robert Moses, the American legal profession, led by thinkers like Ralph Nader, transformed from enablers of large projects into regulators and litigators. This 1960s shift created the anti-development legal culture that paralyzes the U.S. today.

Related Insights

Moses pioneered using independent authorities to issue bonds for infrastructure, sequestering revenue streams like tolls away from the city's general fund. This model starved public transit and other services, creating a structural vulnerability that contributed significantly to the 1970s fiscal crisis long after he was gone.

Local city governments are often captured by "Not In My Backyard" (NIMBY) homeowners who block essential development. A practical solution is to elevate planning and zoning authority to the state level. States, motivated by tax revenues and broader growth, are inherently more development-friendly.

Housing scarcity is a bottom-up cycle where homeowners' financial incentive is to protect their property value (NIMBYism). They then vote for politicians who enact restrictive building policies, turning personal financial interests into systemic regulatory bottlenecks.

Lawyers often act as "handmaidens of the rich," enabling wealthy individuals and communities to use the legal system to block public good projects like mass transit or affordable housing. This subverts the public interest and creates a society that functions well for the wealthy but fails the majority.

China operates as a high-agency "engineering state" that executes relentlessly on large-scale projects. In contrast, America's deliberative, litigious society often leads to endless delays and failures on major infrastructure goals like the California high-speed rail, highlighting a fundamental difference in state capacity and approach.

Regulating technology based on anticipating *potential* future harms, rather than known ones, is a dangerous path. This 'precautionary principle,' common in Europe, stifles breakthrough innovation. If applied historically, it would have blocked transformative technologies like the automobile or even nuclear power, which has a better safety record than oil.

From the transcontinental railroad to the Apollo missions, the U.S. once had a powerful engineering culture that drove national progress. This identity has been lost, replaced by a lawyerly culture that prioritizes obstruction over construction, leading to decaying infrastructure and societal stagnation.

The American government, particularly the Senate, is overwhelmingly composed of lawyers, creating a monolithic culture focused on legislation and obstruction. A greater diversity of professions, including more engineers, scientists, and economists, is needed to shift the national focus toward building and problem-solving.

China, led by engineers, treats national problems as megaprojects to be built. The U.S., dominated by lawyers, excels at blocking initiatives through legal challenges. This core difference explains why China can build rapidly while the U.S. struggles with infrastructure and progress.

Companies are trapped by the dogma of creating 'bulletproof' contracts, a process driven by legal precedent and risk aversion ('nobody got fired for having the lawyers look at this'). This institutional inertia, codified in policies requiring standard terms, prevents the adoption of more flexible, relational contracts, which are often dismissed as 'fluffy' despite being 'radical common sense.'

American Lawyers Shifted from Pro-Growth Dealmakers to Anti-Development Litigators After the 1960s | RiffOn