3 ms·

"Venezuela also respects private property, just to a somewhat lesser extent than other countries. " Your flat out wrong. Easy example: The government nationali

"Venezuela also respects private property, just to a somewhat lesser extent than other countries. " Your flat out wrong. Easy example: The government nationalized a GM vehicle factory within the country and then a few weeks later GM officially withdrew. Does that sound like Venezuela respects private property to you? A nationalization like that would never happen in Western Europe

DomreiRoam 9y ago
Nationalization did happen in France around 1981.
- adventured 9y ago
  The US also had limited price controls under Nixon. It too was extremely damaging and foolish when the US or France took such intervention measures, which you can see from the broader context / economic climate results: US economic disaster in the 1970s and French economic stagnation for decades.
- mcv 9y ago
  Nationalisation also happened in Netherland in 2008: https://www.government.nl/topics/state-owned-enterprises/nationalisation-of-financial-institutions-abn-amro-asr-and-sns-reaal https://www.government.nl/topics/state-owned-enterprises/nat... Although in this case it's financial institutions on the verge on bankruptcy, and they were nationalised to save them, with the goal of eventually privatising them again. Nationalisation versus privatisation is a complex subject, and I think there are things that absolutely should be nationalised. Essential infrastructure where no real competition is possible, for example. Like railroads or mail. I suppose it can make sense for the countries oil reserves. But the important part is that whichever way you move on that scale, you do it in a responsible way and ensure that a fair price is paid for them.
  - DomreiRoam 9y ago
    It is a complex subject and I agree that in case of monopoly (natural or not) and in case of strategic sector we should make an honest evaluation of what serve best the Nation and the People. Also, if you nationalize it shouldn't mean that you don't compensate fairly the private owner.
kunimu 9y ago
Naming an example of a seizure of private property does little to show against the idea that the State respects and protects private property. I do not deny that is has seized private property, however private property in many cases continues unimpeded and protected by the police and the State in general (and yes, it is possible for the State to own private property too). It is possible to name examples of other countries seizing property or stealing from innocent people. Neither of these examples disprove the idea that these states respect and defend private property, or that they respect and defend personal property. The US has seized the personal property of many people. Does this mean that the US police do not act to punish people who steal?
- talmand 9y ago
  Sorry, but any example of a government seizing private property is not a government that respects and protects private property. That is a fiction often pushed by the government to convince the people they have private property rights. If your government can seize your property without due process and/or just compensation, then you do not have private property rights. In the US the police routinely steal private property for their own purposes with little or no due process. Just because they arrest thieves who happen to not be police doesn't mean they respect and protect your property rights. One could say they are protecting their own ability to seize your private property. I am firmly in the belief that the American people have not had strong property rights for a very long time.
  - kunimu 9y ago
    You are correct. For this reason, if the bar for "Socialism" is "seizing property" then the US also qualifies for "Socialism". Few would call the US "Socialist". For this reason, I do not think that the main point being argued (that Venezuela is Socialist because it does not "respect private property) holds in this case.
    - talmand 9y ago
      I would agree, but I would say Venezuela was considered socialist because everyone I know of that I trust to know such things said it was a good example of socialism in action. Not because of seizing property, but because they said they were. Now we're getting the usual "it wasn't REAL socialism" as always. Granted, the socialism was being used to hide corruption (as happens with any system) but it was socialist none-the-less.

DomreiRoam 9y ago

Nationalization did happen in France around 1981.

adventured 9y ago
The US also had limited price controls under Nixon. It too was extremely damaging and foolish when the US or France took such intervention measures, which you can see from the broader context / economic climate results: US economic disaster in the 1970s and French economic stagnation for decades.
mcv 9y ago
Nationalisation also happened in Netherland in 2008: https://www.government.nl/topics/state-owned-enterprises/nationalisation-of-financial-institutions-abn-amro-asr-and-sns-reaal https://www.government.nl/topics/state-owned-enterprises/nat... Although in this case it's financial institutions on the verge on bankruptcy, and they were nationalised to save them, with the goal of eventually privatising them again. Nationalisation versus privatisation is a complex subject, and I think there are things that absolutely should be nationalised. Essential infrastructure where no real competition is possible, for example. Like railroads or mail. I suppose it can make sense for the countries oil reserves. But the important part is that whichever way you move on that scale, you do it in a responsible way and ensure that a fair price is paid for them.
- DomreiRoam 9y ago
  It is a complex subject and I agree that in case of monopoly (natural or not) and in case of strategic sector we should make an honest evaluation of what serve best the Nation and the People. Also, if you nationalize it shouldn't mean that you don't compensate fairly the private owner.

kunimu 9y ago

Naming an example of a seizure of private property does little to show against the idea that the State respects and protects private property. I do not deny that is has seized private property, however private property in many cases continues unimpeded and protected by the police and the State in general (and yes, it is possible for the State to own private property too). It is possible to name examples of other countries seizing property or stealing from innocent people. Neither of these examples disprove the idea that these states respect and defend private property, or that they respect and defend personal property. The US has seized the personal property of many people. Does this mean that the US police do not act to punish people who steal?

talmand 9y ago
Sorry, but any example of a government seizing private property is not a government that respects and protects private property. That is a fiction often pushed by the government to convince the people they have private property rights. If your government can seize your property without due process and/or just compensation, then you do not have private property rights. In the US the police routinely steal private property for their own purposes with little or no due process. Just because they arrest thieves who happen to not be police doesn't mean they respect and protect your property rights. One could say they are protecting their own ability to seize your private property. I am firmly in the belief that the American people have not had strong property rights for a very long time.
- kunimu 9y ago
  You are correct. For this reason, if the bar for "Socialism" is "seizing property" then the US also qualifies for "Socialism". Few would call the US "Socialist". For this reason, I do not think that the main point being argued (that Venezuela is Socialist because it does not "respect private property) holds in this case.
  - talmand 9y ago
    I would agree, but I would say Venezuela was considered socialist because everyone I know of that I trust to know such things said it was a good example of socialism in action. Not because of seizing property, but because they said they were. Now we're getting the usual "it wasn't REAL socialism" as always. Granted, the socialism was being used to hide corruption (as happens with any system) but it was socialist none-the-less.