In my country, two states (Kerala and Karnataka) sued each other to get exclusive rights over an acronym. They spent 7 years engaged in a legal battle and eventually they went back to square one with the courts permitting both states to use the acronym.

Both of them probably spent millions on the case just to get nothing. They are both states in the same country so why are they allowed to sue other for bs reasons? What a waste of tax payer money.

  • mcherm@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    42
    ·
    5 months ago

    If two states disagree, what alternative would you suggest? “Flip a coin and move on” or “Just give in to the other side” are solutions that are likely to be abused: one rogue state can wreck havoc by making unreasonable demands. Going to war over it seems worse than spending millions in court. The courts ARE our inexpensive, fair way of resolving disputes (even if they aren’t as inexpensive as we might like).

    • originalfrozenbanana@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      34
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Yeah the argument here should not be “why are they allowed to sue each other at all,” it should be “why did my elected representatives waste our money over this stupid shit?”

      Find the resolution at the ballot box