Re: LVT: more arguments against
- From: royls@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2005 19:20:02 GMT
On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 13:49:48 +0000 (UTC), EskWIRED@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
wrote:
>In sci.econ, Mark Monson <mmonson@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> If this argument was valid then simply proving you paid for stolen
>> property would give you the right to keep it. But of course it doesn't.
>
>In certain instances, our laws give a buyer better title than his seller
>had. How does that fit in with your paradigm?
"To retain respect for sausages and laws, one must not witness them in
the making." -- Bismarck
-- Roy L
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: LVT: more arguments against
- From: EskWIRED
- Re: LVT: more arguments against
- References:
- LVT: more arguments against
- From: sinister
- Re: LVT: more arguments against
- From: Mark Monson
- Re: LVT: more arguments against
- From: EskWIRED
- LVT: more arguments against
- Prev by Date: Re: Rent and Basic Income
- Next by Date: Re: LVT: more arguments against
- Previous by thread: Re: LVT: more arguments against
- Next by thread: Re: LVT: more arguments against
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|