How we look at things depends on multiple factors. The broader the prescription, the more varied the perspective. For example, consider the axiom, “You cannot do indirectly what you cannot do directly.” This is an all-encompassing adage which putatively strikes at the most inspired accomplishment. What however is equally cautionary is that the specific law in question may itself be subject to identical qualification; that is, its legal boundary may require further analysis before concluding it’s correct interpretation.

It really doesn’t matter how the argument is framed. For one thing, lawyers have long ago learned that if the first line of defence doesn’t work, there’s always an alternative.

Another seemingly boundless axiom is, “You cannot give what you do not have.” This governance is often recited when an owner attempts a strategy with his personal property while ignoring that he has already extended (or limited) those rights to the mortgage lender (whose payment or acquiescence is first required).

There are more popular renditions of these compelling truths; for example, “You is what you is!” Though is smacks of comic approbation, it nonetheless captures a meaningful observation, one which frequently enables a more devoted focus than might otherwise prevail. It is a comfortable way of defining one’s conduct without the apparent extravagance of parables. Yet, like any other catalogue of prescriptive behaviour, it too lends itself to accommodation (by incorporating facility for change for instance). Just another example of interpretation.

In the result it readily unfolds that the guidance of life is more usefully bound, not by laws, rather by objectives.