82,891
edits
Deem: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ | {{a|plainenglish|[[File:eagle over grand canyon.jpg|450px|thumb|center|A [[legal eagle]] soars over the magnificent legacy of the River Pedantry, yesterday.]]}}{{quote| | ||
{{triago deemery}} | |||
:—{{buchstein}}, {{dsh}}}}{{d|Deem|/diːm/|v|]}}<br>(See also [[Deemery|'''~ery''']] ''/diːməri/'' (''n''.)) | |||
To be ''anti''-[[cunisian]]; to treat the one thing ''as'' the other. [[Demnation]] enfolds all a [[legal eagle]]’s intents and every one of her purposes. It is of a piece with the [[equivalence]] we crave when, under a [[stock loan]], we return an asset that ''is'', but simultaneously ''is not'', the one we borrowed. It is the means by which we [[get comfortable]] saying that a [[eurobond]], being [[Fungible|of the same type and class, and forming part of the same series as]] but, all the same, [[ontologically]], distinct from, another one is, nonetheless, “the same” thing. We “[[deem]]” it to be so. | |||
We apply the same sort of [[The farmer and the sheep|Heath Robinson logic]] to a liability we say is “''in [[an amount equal to]]'' the amount borrowed” — as if the sum you pay back is, in some ineffable way, different from the one you borrowed.<ref>This seems intuitively right, but (on the [[JC]]’s idiosyncratic theory of the game, at least) isn’t: you can’t ''own'' money, it is its own, inviolate, anti-proprietary thing — it can only be ''held'', never ''possessed''. [[Money]] is a pure ethereal spirit in our grubby material world, its transfer cannot leave a physical trace but, its gravity ''curves'' our legal space-time continuum into something we can only recognise as [[indebtedness]].</ref> | We apply the same sort of [[The farmer and the sheep|Heath Robinson logic]] to a liability we say is “''in [[an amount equal to]]'' the amount borrowed” — as if the sum you pay back is, in some ineffable way, different from the one you borrowed.<ref>This seems intuitively right, but (on the [[JC]]’s idiosyncratic theory of the game, at least) isn’t: you can’t ''own'' money, it is its own, inviolate, anti-proprietary thing — it can only be ''held'', never ''possessed''. [[Money]] is a pure ethereal spirit in our grubby material world, its transfer cannot leave a physical trace but, its gravity ''curves'' our legal space-time continuum into something we can only recognise as [[indebtedness]].</ref> | ||
These [[Apocalypse|apocalyptic horsemen]] line up on the ridge and gaze across the ontological chasm. Lined up and marshaled against them are all those that ''[[amend]]'', ''[[supplement]]'' or ''modify''. Deep in the [[abyss]] below flows the monstrous River Pedantry whose [[Tedium|tedial]] silted washings have, over millennia, carved out this canyon and left as their legacy these magnificent edifices of legal idiom: [[deeming]]; [[fungibility]]; [[equivalence]]; the ''[[hypothetical]]''. | These [[Apocalypse|apocalyptic horsemen]] line up on the ridge and gaze across the ontological chasm. Lined up and marshaled against them are all those that ''[[amend]]'', ''[[supplement]]'' or ''modify''. Deep in the [[abyss]] below flows the monstrous [[Pedantry|River Pedantry]] whose [[Tedium|tedial]] silted washings have, over millennia, carved out this canyon and left as their legacy these magnificent edifices of legal idiom: [[deeming]]; [[fungibility]]; [[equivalence]]; the ''[[hypothetical]]''. | ||
For where to “[[amend]]” is to assert the ''identity'' of a unitary something that may ''[[change]]'' over a period of time but, all the same, has existential ''continuity''; to “[[deem]]” is to assert the momentary ''non''-identity of two things; to draw a ''legally'' material distinction notwithstanding their failure to have any differentiating form, feature or function. It is to say, “these things ''are'' the same, but they are ''not''”; or “these things are ''not'' the same, but yet they ''are''”. | For where to “[[amend]]” is to assert the ''identity'' of a unitary something that may ''[[change]]'' over a period of time but, all the same, has existential ''continuity''; to “[[deem]]” is to assert the momentary ''non''-identity of two things; to draw a ''legally'' material distinction notwithstanding their failure to have any differentiating form, feature or function. It is to say, “these things ''are'' the same, but they are ''not''”; or “these things are ''not'' the same, but yet they ''are''”. | ||
| Line 16: | Line 20: | ||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||
*{{buchstein}}’s {{dsh}} | |||
*The common law doctrine of [[demption]] | |||
*[[Amend]] | *[[Amend]] | ||
*[[Fungible]] | *[[Fungible]] | ||