I don’t understand what you mean by this.
He’s obviously implying that the same situation occurred as in the hypothetical example that the OP brought up.
The coca and Coca Cola cartels, if Epicurus is right, must’ve not hd title properly transferred to them, whether they seized the land or had the state seize it for them.
If they had properly sold it, and they really did have title, then the title would’ve passed fine. Obviously Epicurus doesn’t think that happened, but I don’t know anything about it either.
Coca Cola has land? By Colombians you must mean indigenous Colombians as opposed to the settled conquistadors.
Yeah, I understand that, but I didn’t know if he was implying that Coca Cola still has control of the coca fields because they’d only deal with the cola plants now.
Yeah, I understand that, but I didn’t know if he was implying that Coca Cola still has control of the coca fields because they’d only deal with the cola plants now.
Coca Cola still has coca leaves. The leaves are “decocainized” now.
They are people who attend the Columbia University.
Here I thought they are people who drink a particular brand of coffee. Shows what I know.
I lol’d.
Property must be returned to its rightful owner. That means A gets his car back, and C gets his money back. If either are unrecoverable, that is a loss.