Sort of - people use “abstract” to mean some very different things. I agree, in the sense of arriving at a general principle from observed specifics, such as the gravitational constant. It is a concept abstracted from real-world phenomena, so it could be said to be representational. But in art, of course, people typically use the term “abstract” to refer to that which is non-representational.
The mistake, as I see it, is that people often treat the concept of ownership as if it were a natural law, that we devise laws about it which formalize empirical relationships, when the reality behind them is completely arbitrary. If you and I agree that we are friends, this is a decision which we both make. But ownership seems to originate as a self-serving concept, that I assert a relationship with an object via wishful thinking. Since this would be meaningless and impractical, what instead happens is that you and I create an agreement between ourselves about how we each relate to objects. It can create stable expectations between us, but is nonetheless based upon the pretense that we are each in a position to determine our environment, rather than exist as subsets of it. As convenient as that would be, the evidence is simply not there. So I see it as a social reality divorced from the empirical world - not unlike us agreeing that we are the product of a giant invisible man in the sky.
Nearly all human economics makes the mistake of giving the needs or wants of the individual primacy over the necessities of their environment, which is in no way sustainable. That’s why ownership and commerce do such a poor job of managing resources.
This is more than enough moral license to steal it right back. I’m completely serious. “Stealing” from cops is hazardous to your health, so the solution is to decrease their budget by the quantity they steal.
The same reasonable people also think corporations are people. They’re well-informed experts in their field but they’re also wrong on Citizens United and Civil Asset Forfeiture.
Trump is is pro torture. A logical conclusion is that now cops can pull you over, torture you, get your confession that you bought your car with drug money, forfeit your car and you get to walk home. Nice system huh? When you get home you find government agents waiting for you, you get a little more torture, you confess to doing drugs at home, and hey presto your home is also forfeited and you get to live under a tree. Nice huh? Tomorrow you go to the bank and guess what? More torture and you know the rest of the story. One day America may be great again but don’t depend on Trump. Civil asset forfeiture has revealed his true colours. Trump is just more yesterday. Alex Jones lied to his supporters about Trump and he’s still lying about Nasa, flat earth and carbon taxes. Trump loves the CIA so he’s not going to expose 911 and maybe more than 20% of internet users know why.
That is a problem. I’d posit that perhaps there is some ground between “natural law” and “arbitrary” – such as “social convention” – but yea, it’s much closer to the arbitrary pole.
