> the concept of ownership exists outside of the law
Not really. The common definitions either fall back to control or invoke the term property, another legalistic word. What ownership means is incredibly fluid and context dependent; consider how ambiguous it is when it comes to its classic form, real estate.
how about "legal absolutism"? If it's not codified in law it doesn't exist and therefore cannot be a part of people's vernacular.
Once this takes over we can update all our dictionaries to stop marking specific definitions as being legal definitions as they'll all, by definition (heh) be the legal definition.
Or, to put it another way, this is the internet, where you're free to say whatever you want but that doesn't mean you'll be taken seriously.
> if it's not codified in law it doesn't exist and therefore cannot be a part of people's vernacular
Within the context of lawmaking, for social constructs like ownership, absolutely. It’s sort of like starting with legality when writing drug regulations; outside the lawmaking context, that makes sense, within it, it’s nonsense.
I’m not saying never use the word ownership in common parlance. But when discussing a new law, yes, it pays to be precise. Because starting from ownership will result in a law that is ineffective or misdirected.
> the concept of ownership exists outside of the law
Not really. The common definitions either fall back to control or invoke the term property, another legalistic word. What ownership means is incredibly fluid and context dependent; consider how ambiguous it is when it comes to its classic form, real estate.
we should label this movement you're describing.
how about "legal absolutism"? If it's not codified in law it doesn't exist and therefore cannot be a part of people's vernacular.
Once this takes over we can update all our dictionaries to stop marking specific definitions as being legal definitions as they'll all, by definition (heh) be the legal definition.
Or, to put it another way, this is the internet, where you're free to say whatever you want but that doesn't mean you'll be taken seriously.
> if it's not codified in law it doesn't exist and therefore cannot be a part of people's vernacular
Within the context of lawmaking, for social constructs like ownership, absolutely. It’s sort of like starting with legality when writing drug regulations; outside the lawmaking context, that makes sense, within it, it’s nonsense.
I’m not saying never use the word ownership in common parlance. But when discussing a new law, yes, it pays to be precise. Because starting from ownership will result in a law that is ineffective or misdirected.
3 replies →