Comment by PH95VuimJjqBqy
1 year ago
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.
What's actually being discussed is the level of authoritarian control software has enabled to non-governmental entities in our lives and how it's so complete that it offers a level of control that not even violence can achieve.
For example, you offer up that just because I own a car doesn't give me the right to murder people with it (stupid, but you went for it so let's roll with it). The level of control being exerted by software is such that I couldn't _stop it_ from happening regardless of my ownership status if a 3rd party decided it wanted my vehicle to murder people.
the ownership thing is a red-herring from someone who is trying really hard to be smart but they're missing the point entirely.
Put another way, It's the tail wagging the dog. "You don't _really_ own it, therefore 3rd parties have the right to exert that level of control over you" when what's being protested is the level of control being afforded 3rd parties. ownership is just the mechanism.
you can't legally create a contract that allows you to charge 50% interest on a loan. You shouldn't be able to create a contract that allows a 3rd party to dictate what you can, and cannot do, with a vehicle they sold you. That should remain solely in the hands of the government (which is why your car murdering people analogy was stupid).