> Property laws exist because if I take your shoe, you don't have your shoe anymore. This is a common misunderstanding about property law, and speaks to a broa

> Property laws exist because if I take your shoe, you don't have your shoe anymore. This is a common misunderstanding about property law, and speaks to a broader misunderstanding about law in the tech community. In practice law in the US is not based on first principles thinking, though first principles thinking lays out some of its corner stone ideas. The law should be thought of as being primarily consequentialist. A tool to uphold the legislative spirit of the constitution and bills passed by the legislature. You can get some pretty wild readings of the law in order to uphold the law's "spirit". Note that the bias towards adhering to older rulings is also consequentialist, the preference is a stable if slightly interpretation of the long than many small refinements over time. It's natural to wonder why the law isn't made to be based on first principles, the answer is that no one will accept the consequences! All legislative bodies move slowly and people who find loopholes move fast. Truly strict interpretation of the law is bedlam. (Which is not to say you can't move the needle)