Sentences with phrase «property rights argument»

«We've always used the property rights argument, and while there is a counterargument that full - time neighbors have property rights as well, we believe there are other ordinances (noise, trash pickup, parking) to protect them,» says Price.

Not exact matches

On pp. 19 - 21, Michael McCullough explores Warren Buffett's argument for why wealthy Americans like him should pay more taxes — which raises fundamental questions about distributive justice, freedom, and property rights.

During the following weeks, the US calibrated its aim on China with the arguments of the large bilateral trade surplus and infringements of US intellectual property rights.

The argument over the right or wrong of a human being property is a separate issue.

They also dismissed arguments that the legislation impinges on people's freedom to do as they wish in their own property, saying that objectors «seem to value this more highly than the children's right to breathe clean air».

This is not an argument about private property rights or religious freedom, it is an argument about taste and his statement this evening is tasteless.»

One particularly important result of Jerry's work was his demolition - and that is the appropriate word - of standard right - wing arguments linking «freedom» with respect for the existing distribution of private property.

I don't think your definition of democracy is right and your argument that the majority of property can't be controlled by the public is the basis for democracy is somewhat flawed.

Focus your language on persuasive arguments addressing property rights, public safety and fiscal impact, rather than heartfelt appeals to save the dogs.

That means using arguments focused on violation of personal property rights, fiscal accountability and public safety.

That means using arguments focused on the violation of personal property rights, fiscal accountability, and public safety.

Some of the University's arguments purporting to uphold their supposed «intellectual property rights» should ring as particularly contemptible to most members of the public.

In the narrower legal context, this Hayekian - Rawlsian debate usually manifests itself in arguments about whether the law should protect «negative rights,» that is, protect persons from government encroachment on their inalienable rights — like private property and free exercise of religion, or whether the law should foster «positive rights,» that is, promote the rights of people to receive tangible things like free health care or housing under the auspices of equal treatment under the law.

To this end, I would like to indicate that, in my believe, we should associate this case with the distinction made by the Court of Justice; that is, the existence of an intellectual property rights and its improper or proper exercise, which could also be a vital argument in the present judgment (the improper exercise of Lundbeck's process patent).

Property recruiters will be looking for evidence that you can put forward an argument persuasively (in this case that you are the right person for their graduate job), and that you have good written communication skills.

The Native Title Report 1998 included a discussion on the right to negotiate, rebutting the argument that it would be unfair if native title holders had a right to negotiate in relation to certain compulsory acquisitions while other holders of property rights do not:

A second argument put by the Government that the NTA is not discriminatory is that native title's vulnerability to extinguishment does not emanate from the NTA but from the unique and inherent characteristics of the property right itself.

The Court's rejection of the argument that, under the RDA, native titleholders can be deprived of their right to property because of the different characteristics of their title, was based on the nature of the rights that the RDA protects.

Even though the High Court had rejected, in the Native Title Act Case, the argument that because native title has different characteristics from other forms of title and derives from a different source, native title holders can be deprived of their property rights, this argument was recouched as part of an international law notion of substantive equality.

The primary argument is that these JDs are final actions that can be reviewed by the courts and the current process to appeal a JD is long, burdensome and costly to property owners, hinders economic development and hurts property rights.

The United States Supreme Court has agreed to hear oral argument in an important property rights case, Murr v. State of Wisconsin, on March 20, 2017.

«REALTORS ® are always framing issues like impact fees in terms of private property rights, which is fine, but the Robinson & Cole analysis helped us go beyond that argument,» says Larson.