Eris wrote:
On 1/13/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If X exists independently of the rules, then this rule is either
lying, or using "This Rule defines X" as a gloss for "This Rule
defines a property of X". In either case, repealing the rule
does not cause X to cease to exist.
How exactly does a Rule lie?
By erecting a legal fiction for the duration of its effect.
If such a Rule were to be enacted and
then subsequently repealed, a Judge could quite reasonably conclude
that X no longer exists, since the Rules say so. And so on...
Possibly. You could register and test it for real.
