4 ms·

So Australia, Canada, and the US are going to be returned to their previous owners? There is zero consistency in these kinds of claims because what is really h

So Australia, Canada, and the US are going to be returned to their previous owners? There is zero consistency in these kinds of claims because what is really happening is an influential family with plenty of resources for lawyers is going to grab a shipload of German taxpayer euros using tortured legal arguments.

sandworm101 7y ago
Well, in the US lots of people are behind Americans getting compensation for things lost when Cuba when communist, property lost when the government nationalized ports and factories. I don't see how that is any different than German's claiming for material lost to a different communist tide. The real issue is whether one believed that property rights can really be destroyed. What does it mean to "own" something? Is it ownership in the eyes of a particular government? What if that government falls? Is it a super-governmental right? Is the Church an authority (ie church records)? Imho it boils down to who is in power and what they decide to do, whether they choose to respect your claim or not. All the legal arguments are secondary. Anyone who thinks they "own" part of the moon knows this problem. Your ownership only matters to a country that wants to respect your moon rights, ie none of them.
onetimeusename 7y ago
I am not sure what Australia, Canada, and the US have to do with it. In the last century, Soviets confiscated land and since then there are laws that allow property to be reclaimed. Land claims in Australia, Canada, or the US, if they exist, are in a separate legal jurisdiction. There are similar claims processes in place for property confiscated by Nazis. Is that also inconsistent? Taxpayer money was spent on maintaining these properties which is unfortunate but I suppose that that should not prevent rightful heirs from being able to claim property.
Lazare 7y ago
> So Australia, Canada, and the US are going to be returned to their previous owners? If you read the article, this boils down to a dispute very specifically about compensation for property seized by the Soviet Union, well after the Hohenzollern's became private citizens. Given that Australia, Canada, and the US were at no point seized from private citizens by the Soviet Union, the answer to your question would appear to be "no". > There is zero consistency in these kinds of claims If you read the article and determine what type of claims are being discussed, you'll see there's a LOT of consistency.
kirrent 7y ago
I'm not familiar with the Canadian or US perspective, but at least in Australia we've had the native title act for 25 years which recognises the rights of Aboriginal people to manage land they've had a traditional connection to in a manner consistent with the traditional customs and laws of the interested party. Just as in this case relating to the Soviets, laws have been passed to help right a moral/legal wrong of dispossession and just as in this case the situation is made complex by modern conflicting use of the property. The moral principle is sound. That the situation of each petitioner under any mildly related system are inconsistent and varied is to be expected. Everyone's circumstances are different.

sandworm101 7y ago

Well, in the US lots of people are behind Americans getting compensation for things lost when Cuba when communist, property lost when the government nationalized ports and factories. I don't see how that is any different than German's claiming for material lost to a different communist tide. The real issue is whether one believed that property rights can really be destroyed. What does it mean to "own" something? Is it ownership in the eyes of a particular government? What if that government falls? Is it a super-governmental right? Is the Church an authority (ie church records)? Imho it boils down to who is in power and what they decide to do, whether they choose to respect your claim or not. All the legal arguments are secondary. Anyone who thinks they "own" part of the moon knows this problem. Your ownership only matters to a country that wants to respect your moon rights, ie none of them.

onetimeusename 7y ago

I am not sure what Australia, Canada, and the US have to do with it. In the last century, Soviets confiscated land and since then there are laws that allow property to be reclaimed. Land claims in Australia, Canada, or the US, if they exist, are in a separate legal jurisdiction. There are similar claims processes in place for property confiscated by Nazis. Is that also inconsistent? Taxpayer money was spent on maintaining these properties which is unfortunate but I suppose that that should not prevent rightful heirs from being able to claim property.

Lazare 7y ago

> So Australia, Canada, and the US are going to be returned to their previous owners? If you read the article, this boils down to a dispute very specifically about compensation for property seized by the Soviet Union, well after the Hohenzollern's became private citizens. Given that Australia, Canada, and the US were at no point seized from private citizens by the Soviet Union, the answer to your question would appear to be "no". > There is zero consistency in these kinds of claims If you read the article and determine what type of claims are being discussed, you'll see there's a LOT of consistency.

kirrent 7y ago

I'm not familiar with the Canadian or US perspective, but at least in Australia we've had the native title act for 25 years which recognises the rights of Aboriginal people to manage land they've had a traditional connection to in a manner consistent with the traditional customs and laws of the interested party. Just as in this case relating to the Soviets, laws have been passed to help right a moral/legal wrong of dispossession and just as in this case the situation is made complex by modern conflicting use of the property. The moral principle is sound. That the situation of each petitioner under any mildly related system are inconsistent and varied is to be expected. Everyone's circumstances are different.