The Court's ruling appears to be based on an overly
strict reading of Articles 10 and 11.
Not exact matches
Since none
of them seems to have paid much attention to the
strict and historically precise technical description
of what I (along with traditional economic historians) mean by «capitalism,» and all seem to confuse the concept (in good American libertarian fashion) with any sort
of trade or barter in general, I can only recommend that they return to the original
article and
read the passages they apparently skimmed over the first time.
If we try to put some Science behind it, some people prefer such
strict pieces because they feel better knowing that they may
read only «one way to sell a house in one day» and skip the rest
of the
article without losing value.
Article by Rebecca Partridge, Photos by Conor Clarke in Berlin / / Oct. 07, 2016 My invitation to the studio
of artist Euan Williams came with
strict instructions to bring a pen: «It shouldn't be a biro, or water resistant, it should be an ink that could... [
read on]