I don't know. I asked esquirette what the legal-profession term for forcing someone to sell who doesn't want to is, but she has yet to tell us. You could ask her what the legal-profession term for paid-for forced sex is too.
Who knows? Does the legal profession define things and use their own terminology in such a way that they can see their clients as good guys even if they initiated force or fraud against others? I am still suspicious of lawyers who use legaleze even when talking to non-lawyers of focusing ONLY on whether something is legal or not, and NEVER on whether something is moral or not.
You know, almost all of the numerous moral codes in the western world are based on the Golden Rule, so WHETHER YOU INITIATE FORCE OR FRAUD OR NOT SHOULD BE FUNDAMENTAL, but it appears that, with lawyers, it's not. I guess this way their conscience doesn't have to bother them until way later, like when they're on their deathbeds...
Pinging: Follow this thread on "not-theft" back.
You know, almost all of the numerous moral codes in the western world are based on the Golden Rule, so WHETHER YOU INITIATE FORCE OR FRAUD OR NOT SHOULD BE FUNDAMENTAL, but it appears that, with lawyers, it's not.
Reform of the legal system is difficult, because you need lawyers to write the changes... You're on the right track.
So if a man rapes a woman and then throws $500 on the bed it is not rape?
sorry. i was out robbing widows and orphans this weekend.
it's called 'eminent domain.'
i think sexual assault would be the other term you seek.
as for the legal/moral issue in the law, it's too subjective for anyone to determine, as you should know. if indeed, we would have a common ground in say, faith, there might be some fundamentals. but that is long long gone. we can only remain effective by working with what we have.
now,can i refuse cases based upon my moral views? of course. can i work for terri schiavo on moral grounds? of course.