THIS IS A GOOD BUT MISUNDERSTOOD QUESTION America practices the common law of anglo saxon origin, in which all things are permitted except that which is extant in law.
This is different from the rest of the world’s model – especially the Napoleonic – in which only that which is in law, is permitted.
So what you see in Europe is a lot more regulation, and fewer legal disputes, and a lot less risk taking and experimentation. Whereas in America we have more risk taking and experimentation, and more litigation.
Frankly, the evidence is that our method is better.
Where the government and law has fallen down is the laws of banking, credit and interest, in which the consumer is not sufficiently protected from an asymmetry of power, information, and incentives.
In my (hopefully) informed opinion, this is the central question we must address (consumer protection from financial predation) not our preference for consequent common law, versus antecedent legislative law.
Only high trust societies can practice consequent common law. THis is the anglo world’s greatest asset. And we should never abandon it thinking that we understand it’s import or lack of.
It is perhaps the greatest competitive advantage of our people.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
https://www.quora.com/When-did-the-US-become-such-a-litigious-country