Just a quick test post for the sole purpose of spreading this email
address.
Only some random garbage below. Nothing for you to see here, please move
along :)
---
>> On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 02:05:32 -0500, "Josh Dougherty"
>home.
>> >If the homeowner wants to take their property, the person who doesn't
>> >
>It doesn't matter. You've changed the subject.
this person that is in his home. In the absence of the govt, such a
>> >> >Where a homeowner is a dictator is under anarcho-capitalist theory,
as
>> >> would have to have such right.
>> >
>
I most certainly have not: you merely nit-pick on words, pretending
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 14:28:10 -0500, "Josh Dougherty"
>> >Secondly,
<jdoc1357b9@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
that substance has changed. Make it "power". Here the home-owner
>> >
power in his home isn't terribly higher than outside of his home.
>news:qdpsu0d1uj1v1e3kqg8aojeb5da4njiil9@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >is
or is invited to his home.
>want
>My original point was not that a homeowner had absolute
>>
>the same thing.
when applied to substance of real world.
>> <jdoc1357b9@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
Gee, good you told me. I'd never guess.
>he
>> >...
>> >(see previous reply)
>And right and power are not
>> So does the homeowner have the absolute right over this person or not?
He doesn't have the 'absolute power' in the sense like he can enslave
>"Bulba!" <bulba@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>power over *another person*, but absolute power over the given area, ie:
the
>> >> In order to have 'absolute unchallengeable power' over this area he
>> >their property taken has precisely one option. They can leave.
>> >
>> >> >considered to have absolute unchallengeable power over the given
area.
>> >> 2. He does not have the right to have to take their property.
does not have 'absolute power' over this person that either tresp*****
See, this is the way you lie: you exploit the imperfections of words
---
Hormel Trappitus
bait@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Spam trap mailbox in real time: http://zipurl.org/4g0c3
|
