An analogy to this way of thinking – although it is not a perfect analogy – is found in the issue of the protection of presumption. More and more reasons have been raised for the explanation and justification of the defense that the law lays out. Around the presumption as strong as it is. Thus, for example, the will of the law to protect the free will and personality of the holder; The intention of the law is to protect the person and his body; The desire to protect equality between human beings; the purpose of protecting ownership; the intention to maintain public safety, and more. Until the Attorney General Oliver Wendell Holmes (O.W. Holmes, Jr.), and in his classic book The Common Law [47] he explained to us what is the reason for the defense of presumption, a reason that is premeditated to distinguish it from the reasons in retrospect (ibid., at p. 213):
Law, being a practical thing, must found itself on actual forces. It is quite enough, therefore, for the law, that man, by an instinct which he shares with the domestic dog, and which the seal gives the most striking example, will not allow himself to be dispossessed, either by force or fraud, of what he holds, without trying to get it back again. Philosophy may find a hundred reasons to justify the instinct, but it would be totally immaterial if it should condemn it and bid us surrender without a murmur. As long as the instinct remains, it will be more comfortable for the law to satisfy it in an orderly manner, than to leave people to themselves. If it should do otherwise, it would become a matter for pedagogues, wholly devoid of reality.
The instinct in us will motivate us to defend our possession of the property, and the law calls for the help of instinct. In our case, we are not speaking by innate instinct, but by a norm that we have set for our will: the norm that instructs us that where there has been an improper imbalance in human relations, action must be taken to restore the situation to its previous state. However, we will not find it difficult to see the great similarity between the principle of restoring the status quo ante and the defense of possession; That the defense of possession of physical assets is only one of the branches of the principle that in the event of a breach of balance in human relations, a situation must be restored. Thus, once the principle has been established that in the case of a disturbance of balance in human relations, it is necessary – in principle – to restore the situation to its previous state, we are required to take only a small step in order to reach an understanding of the need