Comment by PH95VuimJjqBqy
1 year ago
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.
the comment that started this
> You should own your car and be able to do as you wish.
no "new law" was being discussed, you yourself tried to limit the scope to the legal definition and now you're trying to argue that no one should be discussing anything but the legal definition (well, for the second time, just with different words).
> no "new law" was being discussed, you yourself tried to limit the scope to the legal definition
It's a normative statement. And I'm not solely talking legal definitions. But when we're debating the proper boundaries of ownership, it is tautological to invoke ownership in the definition.
The original phrase is stronger as "you should be able to do [with your car] as you wish." Which is not a commonly-held view even if we restrict ourselves to vehicles solely driven on private property--to the point of absurdity, you can't mow down pedestrians just because it's your car and land.
1 reply →