If we don't specify that proposal text can be arbitrary, it can't be arbitrary? We aren't explicitly authorized to put anything we want, just that a text is there.
...I made a diagram. Hopefully it proves that I'm not Faking (can "No Faking" be pulled against any interpretation you disagree with?) but defending a position: https://i.gyazo.com/100225cef8b9829cccf2955ec5eb52df.png (I assume that Trust Tokens are created when issued.) On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 4:24 PM, Nicholas Evans <nich...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jul 20, 2017 09:17, "Cuddle Beam" <cuddleb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > And yes, I agree with that entirely, but I'm considering it from a > different framework. I'll relate it back to (and I'm sorry for going around > your scam so often, but it's a recent one and it's also about "a X") "a > ballot". > > "A ballot". That's "any" ballot, yes? Any ballot of your choosing. > So "a Trust Token" is "any Trust Token of my choosing"? > > Unlike the ballot thing, where you select from existing things and do an > operation on it - making it be withdrawn, Trust Tokens create things (I > assume), so you need to select from an imaginary thing and then do an > operation on that - making it exist. (For example, when you create "An > Estate" - note that "AN" there! - you take an imaginary - and arbitrary! - > non-Estate then do the operation of making it exist in "realspace"). > > Again, this is pretty obscure/abstract though. > > > No it's not. You just fail to see the difference between specifying and > creating a legal fiction. The latter requires rule authorization, like how > the rules tell you what can be specified about an estate. > > > On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 3:41 PM, Alex Smith <ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> > wrote: > >> On Thu, 2017-07-20 at 15:32 +0200, Cuddle Beam wrote: >> > I don't force anyone to create tokens. I agree with that, with this >> method, >> > I can't make anyone give anything. I attempt to create a token such that >> > would have the same characteristics as if that person had >> created/granted >> > it (which would be a type of Token, given that I can grant "a Token", >> which >> > can be a Blue Token, a Fuzzy one - but those kind of can't exist by >> virtue >> > of the ruleset right now, but a token of the kind that, for example, you >> > could create, is a kind of Token that the Ruleset could generate, and >> > that's the kind of Token I attempt to grant, because it's "a Token"). >> >> Creating an object with arbitrary properties is only possible if doing >> so isn't impossible, rather tautologously. Creating an object with the >> property of having been created by someone else (which is the property >> you're trying to set) is a contradiction on its face. >> >> It's certainly possible that a rule could permit a legal fiction to be >> created that an entity had been created by someone other than the >> person who actually created it (Agencies pretty much do this, for >> example). But the rules don't let people create arbitrary legal >> fictions; legal fictions only come about when the rules try to >> contradict established fact (because the rules /always/ win disputes). >> On the other hand, if there's no contradiction between the rules and >> reality (e.g. when the rules check to see who created something and >> don't specify how that's calculated), the obvious principle is "the >> ordinary-language definition is used", rather than "the person who >> performed the action can cause arbitrary legal fictions in the >> results". At some point, you have to defer to ordinary language when >> interpreting the meaning of rules, otherwise you'd never be able to get >> started understanding anything. >> >> See also CFJ 1936 (which was an attempted scam along essentially the >> same lines as yours, but considerably more plausible; it didn't work). >> >> -- >> ais523 >> > > >
