Douglas
Adams propounded a unique theory for heavier-than-air flight. Climb to a high
place and throw yourself off. And oh, try to miss the ground. Classic in its
simplicity, except for the obvious drawback – nobody seems to have made it
work. Somewhere in another dimension, perhaps doodling on a napkin in The
Restaurant at End of the Universe, Douglas Noel Adams may be working on an
upgrade.
But
the theory is out there. Which leads to another possible scenario. Somewhere in
the Mid-Western United States, a devoted reader and fan of Douglas Adams’ work
decides to try out his theory of flight. With the expected result. Thereafter,
this thwarted aviation researcher – or rather more likely, his next-of-kin –
sue Douglas Adams’ estate and Pan Books for a zillion dollars because his
theory caused grievous injuries and / or death of a reader. How would you rule
in such a case, dear reader?
What,
you think it’s far-fetched? Try this: the Mayor of San Diego is accused of
sexual harassment. His attorney places the blame squarely on the City of San
Diego. Because – wait for this! – the City never trained its officials on what
constitutes sexual harassment and how to avoid it. In other words, the attorney
claims that normal educated people need to be trained in how NOT to be
lecherous and insensitive. This is not just (in my humble opinion) a specious
defence. This is a symptom. There is a spectre haunting the liberal world
today, the spectre of transferred responsibility. The spectre of “it’s-not-MY-fault”.
The easy way out – blaming the system, the television, the corporation, just so
long as it’s somebody else.
The
USA, of course, revels in incredibly frivolous litigation. A couple sued
WalMart because their grocery bag split and caused “cracked and damaged
toenails”. No, really! It’s not just the USA. A lady in Israel sued a weather
station because they predicted sunny weather, she went out in a light dress
without an umbrella, it rained, she caught a cold. And a truly sad story – a
student in Texas (but of course!) died because she got drunk, drove her Honda
into Galveston Bay and drowned because she couldn’t unfasten her seat-belt. So
of course her parents are suing Honda because their seat-belts cannot be
unfastened by drunk drivers who also happen to be underwater. It’s sad that a
young girl died, but at some point, we have to accept that if you break the
law, you take the consequences. Not just the law of the land, but the laws of
rationality.
There’s
an extension of this attitude in India as well. The attitude of “why doesn’t
the government fix it”. The assumption that the common citizen is
entitled, but not responsible. A contradiction of every social construct from
Aristotle to John Crawls. It can't work. If we want the system to work for us,
we have to work for the system. If I want my daughter to be safe on the roads
after dark, it's also my duty to check why my nephew is taking his bike out
after midnight. If I want the conservancy to keep my city clean, it's my job to
take my trash over to the local dump instead of leaving it outside my gate. I
can't expect rewards without effort. There's no entitlement without
responsibility.
And if we expect
such entitlement, we're stupid. As stupid as the man who says he broke the law
because his employer didn't teach him how to stay within it.
