英语翻译How does Richard Epstein,advocate of muscular strict lia

英语翻译
How does Richard Epstein,advocate of muscular strict liability in tort law,fit in with Richard Epstein,opponent of muscular or (even healthy) land regulation law?How does the tort scholar fit with the takings scholar?[FN28] This question looks easy,because it looks like one could just say that property rights and rights to one's own body are being enforced by strict liability law and by strong,anti-regulatory takings law.Epstein is a Libertarian favoring strong property rights in both.A Nozickian framework would permit strong property rights (including rights to physical integrity) and should fit conformably with a strict liability system And a Nozickian should also be hesitant about the regulatory state,to say the least.Even if there is a lot to these explanations,it is important to see that an explanatory gap remains.The problem is that much of the debate over the Takings Clause can be depicted as a debate between formalists who hold a fairly stringent and narrow conception of what counts as a taking of property and pragmatists who believe that “takings” cover impairments of value and wealth even apart from property invasions narrowly conceived.Another way of putting this is that a ‘rules' crowd believes there must be an interference with exclusive possession if there is to be a taking,while a ‘standards' crowd does not,and is willing to take a de facto substantial diminution of value to go a long way to making a taking.Epstein's whole approach to clarity of rules and strict liability in tort,and his immersion in common law understanding of tort,suggests that he should be in the first group,but he is of course in the second,favoring a strong conception of regulatory takings.[FN29] That is a problem.
Part of the explanation,I believe,is that the contrast between formalist and pragmatist,above,presumes a conception of property rights commensurate with a constitutionally broad conception of police power and regulatory power,and that this begs the question.My own view is to accept the broader constitutional conception,but even if I did not,I would probably view what Epstein calls “takings” as violations of the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause as applied to liberty,not as takings.I suppose Epstein also believes such a problem exists,but has no trouble seeing the liberty as built into the property right and therefore seeing regulatory takings as being like Loretto but segmented by use not by space.[FN30] The rejection of the constitutionality of this breadth of police power ultimately does rest on the strong libertarianism as a matter of political theory,understood as part of an interpretation of the Constitution.That is,Epstein's libertarianism in normative political theory is a part of what leads him to think the bundle of sticks in a property right includes rights against regulation.

理查德·艾泼斯坦如何,提倡的肌肉严格责任在侵权法中,符合理查德·艾泼斯坦,对手的肌肉或(即使是健康的)的土地法规?如何符合侵权学者进款学者吗?[FN28]这个问题看起来容易,因为它看起来就像一个只能说产权与权利的一个人自身的身体正在执行严格责任法律和强,anti-regulatory进款法律.爱是一种强大的产权倾向自由两者.一个Nozickian框架允许强大的产权(包括身体完整性的权利),这应该符合,严格责任制度心地和Nozickian犹豫不决,也应该是管理国家的,至少可以这样说.即使有很多这些解释,这是很重要的,看到一个解释的差距依然存在.问题是,大部分的争论可以进款条款如下:描绘成一个辩论持有相当严格的和狭隘的观念,怎样才算是一个以财产和实用主义认为“收入”的封面的价值和财富损伤狭窄甚至除了财产入侵怀了孕.以不同的方式来提出这是一个“规则”的人群相信就必须有一个独家拥有干扰如果有服用,而一个“标准”的人群并不,愿意事实上的实质性价值的减少去很长的一段路要做考虑.爱匹斯丁的整体有清晰的规则和方法,严格责任在侵权,他理解沉浸在普通法侵权的,表明他应该在第一个小组,但是他当然是在第二,从而有利于调整的一个强大的概念进款.[FN29]那是个问题.
部分的解释,我相信的是,对比死板实用主义者,上方,假设一个概念与其宪法财产权的概念一个广泛权力和监管权力的警察,这是