So what you're saying is.... that for something to be owned it must be ownable. What kind of statment is that?
For something to be valuable it must have value.
For something to be breakable it must be able to be broken.
What is this fun with grammer day?
http://wordinfo.info/unit/2365/ip:1
You get the relationships wrong. Here's the correct answer:For something to be valuable it must have value.
For something to be breakable it must be able to be broken.
What is this fun with grammer day?
http://wordinfo.info/unit/2365/ip:1
For something to have value it must be valuable.
For something to be broken it must be breakable.
Then you bring up owning people as property, but then immediate discount your own argument by stating that people can't be owned.
Bitcoins can be owned and are ownable... so what point are you trying to make?
?
I am illustrating to you that characteristics do not mandate treatment. Doing otherwise would fall in line with a naturalistic fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy) which you seem to be doing here. Property is not purely derived from physical characteristics but is bound by social standards. However, you can establish which characteristics are necessary for something to act as property - and that's what was done in part in the manuscript which was cited earlier.Bitcoins can be owned and are ownable... so what point are you trying to make?
?I think bitcoins possess key characteristics to establish ownership, and thus can serve as property in the common sense. And because it can, it will be treated as property.
So wait you do think they are property? Then why do you keep arguing pointless nuances about unrelated topics?