Lawfare As Warfare

Duality and chaos are the nature of the universe. Even as we strive for unity and order, we are often forced to fight on principle and engage in war. From the earliest caveman’s hand-to-hand combat to the modern era of nuclear annihilation, the nature and consequences of warfare have been upended.

Kinetic wars in places like Ukraine and Gaza have now expanded to involve technology, space, economics, currency, trade, research, biology, and artificial intelligence. The chosen arenas of engagement range from undermining an opponent’s economy to releasing a deadly virus, which is more cost-effective than bombing cities.

Another area of warfare is the advent of “lawfare.” Take the current battles involving Donald Trump in New York State and Elon Musk in Delaware courts, cited by way of examples and not because I am a personal fan of either.

The overriding point is that undermining law and order erodes the very foundation of capitalism. Like New York, Hong Kong was a center of global capitalism until China eroded its legal foundation. In a move similar to the one involving Elon Musk, Jack Ma, who was a self-made billionaire, was suddenly silenced by China. Among the consequences today, China is in a deflationary cycle with a shrinking population.

As evidenced by Monday’s unanimous Supreme Court ruling, states may not bar former President Donald Trump from running for another term, thus overturning Colorado’s finding and the threat that adversaries can abuse the justice system by disenfranchising the voters.

In the case of Elon Musk, 80% of Tesla’s shareholders had agreed to compensate him via stock grants upon achieving certain far-fetched goals. Having met such goals and adding $600 Billion to the Tesla market cap, Elon was entitled to his $54 Billion compensation. So, the question is, why would a Delaware judge seek to deprive him of that compensation? Who is the injured party in this case? Who, other than lawyers, gains from this ruling?

In the case of Donald Trump’s loans, the banks presumably engaged in their own due diligence, the loans were fully performing with full repayment to the banks, who were on record as saying they were delighted and willing to extend credit on such terms again. So the question is, who is the injured party, and who gets to keep the $350M penalty the judge imposed?

Lawfare is a double-edged sword. Let us not use the law to engage in internal battles.

— Sina