Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!houxm!mtuxo!mtunh!mtung!mtunf!ariel!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!pesnta!qumix!ittvax!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!mangoe From: mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) Newsgroups: net.politics.theory Subject: Re: Re: Freedom of Speech and Assembly Message-ID: <781@umcp-cs.UUCP> Date: Tue, 9-Jul-85 02:11:55 EDT Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.781 Posted: Tue Jul 9 02:11:55 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 13-Jul-85 15:51:49 EDT References: <706@umcp-cs.UUCP> <28200028@inmet.UUCP> Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD Lines: 19 In article <28200028@inmet.UUCP> nrh@inmet.UUCP writes: >>And the third >>important question: how do you prevent the rich from subverting a system in >>which the right to property is supreme? >The right to property is not "supreme" in the sense that it gives you >other rights. In particular, a person who owns a million acres has >no choices about what you do on your single acre. I was using "Supreme" in the sense that it seems to me that when there is a conflict between the right to private property and any other right, property always wins. If I have the wrong impression, then I'd like to see some systematization of how you resolve the conflicts. Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe "You've disintegrated Einstein!"