Re: US Supreme Court approves eminent domain
- From: "tonyp" <tonyp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 21:36:18 -0400
"Les Cargill" <lNOcargill@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote
> There's nothing contradictory about it. Theft is just theft,
> and if it wears the beard of legality, it's legalized.
As a blanket statement, that's just wrong. The only difference between a
"theft" and a "purchase" is the _price_. If I offer you a thousand bucks
for your car, you refuse the offer, and I impose the deal on you anyway, you
can claim to be a victim of "theft". Now, substitute "million" for
"thousand". Still feel robbed?
-- TP
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: US Supreme Court approves eminent domain
- From: Les Cargill
- Re: US Supreme Court approves eminent domain
- References:
- US Supreme Court approves eminent domain
- From: ruetheday@xxxxxxxxxx
- Re: US Supreme Court approves eminent domain
- From: Les Cargill
- Re: US Supreme Court approves eminent domain
- From: Les Cargill
- US Supreme Court approves eminent domain
- Prev by Date: Re: per capita GDP numbers : bogus?
- Next by Date: Re: per capita GDP numbers : bogus?
- Previous by thread: Re: US Supreme Court approves eminent domain
- Next by thread: Re: US Supreme Court approves eminent domain
- Index(es):
Loading