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!"