Possession is nine tenths of the law.
Most of us have likely heard this expression many times, but what does it actually mean?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possession_is_nine-tenths_of_the_law
Possession is nine-tenths of the law is an expression meaning that ownership is easier to maintain if one has possession of something, or difficult to enforce if one does not.
I've always heard the expression in the context of law enforcement, but apparently in can also be a way to claim legitimate ownership of something you've found.
That is not mine! I've never seen that before!
I guess it's a good thing caprese salads aren't illegal.
Finders keepers losers weepers
In the context of finding an item of value it means you get to keep any object that doesn't have an obvious owner, be it cash on the ground, quarters on the beach, or buried/sunken treasure. You found it, you own it. Of course the land that you found it on had better be public domain, or you've stolen the item from the landlord.
In the context of law enforcement.
It means that if the cops find something illegal on you, be it drugs, weapons, or a stolen item, you own that item, and that ownership can be used against you in the court of law.
I think it's funny because the only way to own something is rule-by-force. Since the beginning of time, you only own something if you can stop someone else from taking it from you, or if you're lucky enough to be the servant of an entity that allows you to have proxy ownership under their protection. This is where government comes in.
In the context of modern day living,
It means that the military-industrial complex is the entity that owns everything, and they merely allow us to think that we own something as long as we follow whatever rules they put into place.
"Beyond any reasonable doubt"
As an aside, I'd like to point out what a ridiculous statement this is. Every jury is subjected to this foolish statement. It doesn't mean anything; it is based purely on opinion.
What does "reasonable doubt" even mean? In my view, it is a measurement of how many innocent people we're willing to get convicted. However, if you ask the authority, they'll tell you that number is 0%, which implies that you literally can't convict anyone because there would always be reasonable doubt. Reversed convictions prove otherwise.
So what's the real number? 1%? 5%? 10%? If we look at how many cases get overturned using hard evidence, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the true number is much higher than the cases that get overturned. In addition, the number is racist and goes up depending on skin color and socioeconomic status. Everything about the system screams "corrupt".
In the context of crypto.
This is the interesting part. I believe privacy coins and technology haven't even come close to having their time to shine. I lot of crazy court cases involving crypto are on the horizon. The closer we get to mainstream adoption, the weirder they will get.
Imagine everyone being taught "not your keys, not your crypto" and then they find themselves on a jury where the court is trying to convict based on blockchain analytics but there's just one problem: they never found the private keys to the wallets in question. How can a court convict someone based on such evidence? Defense lawyers are going to have a field day.
Not only that, but money is not stored in the wallet. Wallets are basically just a keychain, and keys can be copied and borrowed. "I didn't make that transaction, this is a shared account. Prove me wrong." It's going to get very hard to nail people to the wall if they gain access to the internet anonymously and transact anonymously. I honestly have no idea what governments will do. I assume they'll have to start convicting with less evidence, and this will in turn send even more innocents to the torture chamber.
Think about it this way:
They never talk about the criminals they catch whose private keys they didn't find. Why is that? It's because they don't want the public to even know how powerful this technology is. "We know this is our guy but we can't take his money away from him..." Holy shit, people that hear that would be like, "are you serious right now?"
We are entering a new era where no one can have their bank account frozen, from political dissidents to outright serial killers (not that they ever catch any of the smart & careful ones anyway). This dynamic is going to flip the entire world upside down until the legacy system can figure out what to do about it.
But that's just it, the legacy can not adapt to this level of exponential development. The harder they try to adapt the faster they will find that adaptation nullified. The lumbering cancerous growth that is capitalism will have met its match soon™ enough.
All hail cooperative open-source meritocracy.
This is the way of the future.