Comment by JumpCrisscross
1 year ago
> there's enough control that 3rd party entities are dictating with 100% success what an owner can do with the vehicle
Your key term here is control. When discussing a new rule, that is what you focus on. Use the word ownership when selling the rule, sure. My point is rules drafted starting from ownership tend to be trivial to circumvent. Because they presume ownership is a natural state when it is a social construct.
or, and this is a crazy thought, when someone pays for something they expect to have the right to do what they want with it. When a 3rd party is able to exert absolute control in hampering that ability, it becomes a problem.
you purchase a video game from your religious friend and they decide you shouldn't be allowed to play the game between 8pm and 8am and they have the ability to ensure you can't.
their ability to limit you isn't a social construct, it's as strongly bound as physical violence, and that's the problem.
> when someone pays for something they expect to have the right to do what they want with it
Where? When?
Say you own private property and a car. Does that mean you are allowed to leak diesel all over it? Most jurisdictions say no, in part because that affects your neighbours’ property values.
Ownership is not, and has never meant, absolute sovereignty. It’s a package of rights defined in terms of control. When we’re discussing amending what ownership means, giving the owner more control, it’s circular to start with ownership: you can do it. But it’s much more meaningful (and powerful) to talk about control.
it's telling that all of your counterexamples involve the government when the entire discussion is around what non-government 3rd parties are allowed to dictate.
Tesla is not the government. Toyota is not the government.
stop it.
5 replies →