I'm not sure what to make of this...

[wolf pauli]

<!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>Explain, please.</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br>Again, the belief in the "right" to own land, i.e., the alleged sanctity of the prevailing system of land ownership.<br><br>For references see my last two posts on 'The bankers' thread in the Temp Forum:<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://p097.ezboard.com/frigorousintuitionfrm8.showMessage?topicID=77.topic">p097.ezboard.com/frigorou...D=77.topic</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br> <p></p><i></i>

[chiggerbit]

Quick definitions (land tenure)<br><br><br>noun: the right to hold property; part of an ancient hierarchical system of holding lands <br><br><br><br>How so, dangerous? Doesn't this decision just re-birth "land tenure", giving more rights back to the elite heirarchy, aristocracy?<br> <p></p><i></i>

[wolf pauli]

<!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>How so, dangerous?</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br>Read those references.<br><br><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>Doesn't this decision just re-birth "land tenure", giving more rights back to the elite heirarchy, aristocracy</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->?<br><br>Yes. Making a bad problem worse is generally not a good idea. <br><br>Opposing a court ruling that makes a deeply inequitable system worse doesn't require <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>supporting</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> that system in the first place. <br> <p></p><i></i>

[chiggerbit]

Does not the Supreme Court make use of convention/tradition/custom to excuse discrepencies in civil rights, laws? <br><br>Does not this "tradition" below constitute a basis for the rights of property?<br><br>Samuel Adams:<br><br>"Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these:<br>First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property;together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can." <p></p><i></i>

[wolf pauli]

... on whom the framers insisted repeatedly, distinguished the <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>land</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> question from the question of <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>property</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->. So did Quesnay, Ricardo, A.R. Wallace, Henry George, and even that darling of contemporary market economists, Adam Smith. If you're not familiar with the literature of classical political economy, you'd do well to start there.<br><br>"The earth belongs in usufruct to the living and is given as a common stock for men to live and labor on."<br>- Locke, <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>Principles of Political Economy</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br>As to the much more limited matter with which we began -- the poll you cited -- either one sees why it's poorly formulated -- viz., the dissenting option is framed in such a way that it's possible for a dissenting party <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>rationally to reject it</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> -- or one doesn't. If you don't, sorry, I can't be of any further help.<br> <p></p><i></i>

[chiggerbit]

So, what you are saying in a wordy way is that the dissenting opinion is flawed? <p></p><i></i>

[wolf pauli]

.. but have it your way. <p></p><i></i>

[Connut]

Going back to where all this started, this news today (I've got my fingers crossed that this developer is serious as a snake!)<br><br><<!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.html>">www.freestarmedia.com/hot...rty2.html></a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>Weare, New Hampshire (PRWEB) Could a hotel be built on the land owned by Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter? A new ruling by the Supreme Court which was supported by Justice Souter himself itself might allow it. A private developer is seeking to use this very law to build a hotel on Souter's land.<br><br>LOL <p></p><i></i>

[wolf pauli]

Already cited above.<br><br>Book your 'reservation' here:<br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.pledgebank.com/LostLibHotel">www.pledgebank.com/LostLibHotel</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> <p></p><i></i>