Yikes, Ian. I am not familiar with tort law or any of the other laws James mentions here. Could you break this down a little bit for me? What I thinkI understand is that for the fascists public law is really the will of private property owners because the fascists blurred the legislative and the judicial realms. So in enforcing the laws the powerful could change the laws. I can't be sure since you are mentioning laws that I only have a vague understanding of what them mean.
Hummmmm. If this is what the fascists were saying then I have this to say in response. The WTO has ruled that every labor law they have encountered, every environmental law, etc. to be a "barrier to fair trade and therefore "illegal under international law." Lisa on 09/27/2002 1:13 AM, Ian Murray at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Lisa Stolarski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> Found this at this site >> >> > http://cityhonors.buffalo.k12.ny.us/city/aca/hist/ibhist/ibhiststud/histlit. >> html >> >> >> >> Under his new government policy, every economic activity in the country > was >> put under a government-appointed panel, called a corporation. >> Representatives of management and labor, in each industry served on these >> panels. All profits under the corporate state went to the government. The >> Parliament became nothing more than a instrument for the corporations. >> >> >> It seems that Moussolini's "corporation" was one that was created by the >> state. >> >> Still unraveling this mystery. >> >> Lisa S. >> > ======================== > >> From one of James Boyle's recent exams: > http://www.law.duke.edu/boylesite/exam98.htm > > 2.) "Furthermore, the realists understood, as had the classics, that the > whole structure of the classical scheme depended upon the coherence of > private law and the public/private distinction. Thus, the realists spent > little time attacking the methodology of constitutional law and concentrated > instead upon undermining the coherence of the key private-law categories > that purported to define a sphere of pure autonomy. For example, Morris > Cohen's Essay "Property and Sovereignty" pointed out that property is > necessarily public not private. Property means the legally granted power to > withhold from others. As such, it is created by the state and given its only > content by legal decisions that limit or extend the property owner's power > over others. Thus, property is really an (always conditional) delegation of > sovereignty, and property law is simply a form of public law.. Realism had > effectively undermined the fundamental premises of liberal legalism, > particularly the crucial distinction between legislation (subjective > exercise of will) and adjudication (objective exercise of reason.) > Inescapably it had also suggested that the whole liberal worldview of > (private) rights and (public) sovereignty mediated by the rule of law was > only a mirage, a pretty fantasy that masked the reality of economic and > political power. Since the realists, American jurists have dedicated > themselves to the task of reconstruction...." > > Discuss and criticize this quotation with reference to the history of > American tort law, using examples drawn from either the development of the > law of product liability or the law of causation. >
