The idea that a closed number of property rights assists in the maintenance of an optimal standardization between completely customizable property rights and completely regimented property rights cannot justify the numerus clausus principle when unconventional property types are encountered. Do you agree?
The idea that a closed number of property rights assists in the maintenance of an optimal standardization between completely customizable property rights and completely regimented property rights cannot justify the numerus clausus principle when unconventional property types are encountered. Do you agree?