6 ms·

Why is seizing property without due process okay when we do it? Is it the same reason that dissenting opinions can’t be heard because they’re dangerous propagan

by koolba 5y ago

Why is seizing property without due process okay when we do it? Is it the same reason that dissenting opinions can’t be heard because they’re dangerous propaganda?

paganel 5y ago
> Why is seizing property without due process okay when we do it Honestly, I would have thought that the recent nationalisation of Russian oligarchs' assets over much of the Western world would sent thrills down the spines of many, many other wealthy people, no matter their citizenship. Probably it was a shock to them, too, I expect a counter-reaction via media in the coming weeks. Locke wrote his famous treatises on government especially for cases like this one, i.e. what happens with your property when you fall on the wrong side of the current powers that be? He said that said powers shouldn't confiscate your property, and there are many smart people who have said/written during the last few centuries that that viewpoint stands at the basis of our (Western) civilisation. Interesting times, to say the least.
samhw 5y ago
This is due process, per the laws of the countries their yachts are in.
- paganel 5y ago
  The communist nationalisation process after WW2 was also 100% legal in the countries where it was applied. Later edit: To make things clearer, because I have the impression that people in the West live with the idea that out-here in the former Communist East (from where I'm from) things like nationalisations and all that were done sort of outside the law, hence why doing similar things in the West right now might be ok because it's done under the auspices of the law, I repeat, most of the that stuff was done with the law in hand. I even wrote/implemented a small personal project [1] based on such a law, the June 1950 nationalisation law. I wanted to see where were located the properties of the Bucharest-based Jewish population that got their properties confiscated (remember, this was after WW2, under a regime that had fought against the Nazis). Of course that the Jews were not implicitly targeted by that law, but they were greatly affected by it (being, on average, a little better-off and more urban compared to the regular Romanian peasant). [1]http://bucuresti.maglina.ro/nationalizari/ http://bucuresti.maglina.ro/nationalizari/ (you have to ignore the GMaps warning, I was too lazy to put anything else in place since their API changes some time ago; also, not sure it works on mobile).
- koolba 5y ago
  Show me which western country and laws grants the government the right to seize property without due process. If that's really the case there's going to be a massive shift in capital allocation over the next decade. In the USA this is specifically banned by the Constitution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder
  - ajsnigrutin 5y ago
    USA has something very close to that - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United... It's universally thought as a "bad thing", and more like a "highway robbery" than something citizens actually want. But when it's the russians, it's suddenly ok.
- throwawayninja 5y ago
  This is a good thing to keep in mind; I originally figured this was outlandishly unfair, but lined up against other sanctions it makes sense. If sovereign nations can prevent profitable trade (aka ownership & exercising of business relations) it makes sense to prevent ownership & exercising of business property.
cd23 5y ago
_bbny 5y ago
Because it helps get rid of Putin and its something we are able to do. Getting rid of Putin is our objective right now. Is it technically ethical and nice? Maybe not, that can be debated. But I don't see why we should care. Russia's also seizing foreign property as well as invading another country, if you do want to have that ethical argument. This is how the world works, I don't think we should get bogged down in whether it's technically entirely OK for those poor Russian-govt-linked billionaires to have less yachts. It's in our power, it's in our interest, and that's how the world works.
- ajsnigrutin 5y ago
  So wait... if we europeans wanted to get rid of eg. clinton for bombing in yugoslavia, and then bush of the middle eastern crap (well, technically both bushes), we can just take away property of random rich americans?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - scotty79 5y ago
    Not random. All. And I fully expect the world to do it if USA ever does invade Mexico or Canda with tanks and starts shelling civilians just because they want to annex them. American oligarchs have total influence over American government. If they allow such thing to happen they are materially responsible for the damage.
    - ajsnigrutin 5y ago
      > Not random. All. And I fully expect the world to do it if USA ever does invade Mexico or Canda with tanks and starts shelling civilians just because they want to annex them. Why mexico or canada? Why not for iraq? Afghanistan? Syria? Libya? Yemen? Jugoslavia? Why only for annexation and not for "just bombing" or even occupation, with yes, tanks? Shelling civillians? Like bombing a civillian train? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grdelica_train_bombing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grdelica_train_bombing A bus? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lu%C5%BEane_bus_bombing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lu%C5%BEane_bus_bombing How about escaping refugees? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_Albanian_refugees_near_Gjakova https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_Albanian_refug... Or a foreign embassy? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_bombing_of_the_Chinese_embassy_in_Belgrade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_bombing_of_the_C... Civillian tv station? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_the_Radio_Television_of_Serbia_headquarters https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_the_Radio_Tele... How about directly custer bombing a city? Twice. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ni%C5%A1_cluster_bombing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ni%C5%A1_cluster_bombing A hospital? https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/balkans/stories/brussels052199.htm https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/balkans... So you agree, that if US/NATO doesn't immediately pull out from eg. syria, that switzerland can take away googles property in Zurich?

by koolba 5y ago

Why is seizing property without due process okay when we do it? Is it the same reason that dissenting opinions can’t be heard because they’re dangerous propaganda?

paganel 5y ago

> Why is seizing property without due process okay when we do it Honestly, I would have thought that the recent nationalisation of Russian oligarchs' assets over much of the Western world would sent thrills down the spines of many, many other wealthy people, no matter their citizenship. Probably it was a shock to them, too, I expect a counter-reaction via media in the coming weeks. Locke wrote his famous treatises on government especially for cases like this one, i.e. what happens with your property when you fall on the wrong side of the current powers that be? He said that said powers shouldn't confiscate your property, and there are many smart people who have said/written during the last few centuries that that viewpoint stands at the basis of our (Western) civilisation. Interesting times, to say the least.

samhw 5y ago

This is due process, per the laws of the countries their yachts are in.

paganel 5y ago
The communist nationalisation process after WW2 was also 100% legal in the countries where it was applied. Later edit: To make things clearer, because I have the impression that people in the West live with the idea that out-here in the former Communist East (from where I'm from) things like nationalisations and all that were done sort of outside the law, hence why doing similar things in the West right now might be ok because it's done under the auspices of the law, I repeat, most of the that stuff was done with the law in hand. I even wrote/implemented a small personal project [1] based on such a law, the June 1950 nationalisation law. I wanted to see where were located the properties of the Bucharest-based Jewish population that got their properties confiscated (remember, this was after WW2, under a regime that had fought against the Nazis). Of course that the Jews were not implicitly targeted by that law, but they were greatly affected by it (being, on average, a little better-off and more urban compared to the regular Romanian peasant). [1]http://bucuresti.maglina.ro/nationalizari/ http://bucuresti.maglina.ro/nationalizari/ (you have to ignore the GMaps warning, I was too lazy to put anything else in place since their API changes some time ago; also, not sure it works on mobile).
koolba 5y ago
Show me which western country and laws grants the government the right to seize property without due process. If that's really the case there's going to be a massive shift in capital allocation over the next decade. In the USA this is specifically banned by the Constitution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder
- ajsnigrutin 5y ago
  USA has something very close to that - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United... It's universally thought as a "bad thing", and more like a "highway robbery" than something citizens actually want. But when it's the russians, it's suddenly ok.
throwawayninja 5y ago
This is a good thing to keep in mind; I originally figured this was outlandishly unfair, but lined up against other sanctions it makes sense. If sovereign nations can prevent profitable trade (aka ownership & exercising of business relations) it makes sense to prevent ownership & exercising of business property.

cd23 5y ago

_bbny 5y ago

Because it helps get rid of Putin and its something we are able to do. Getting rid of Putin is our objective right now. Is it technically ethical and nice? Maybe not, that can be debated. But I don't see why we should care. Russia's also seizing foreign property as well as invading another country, if you do want to have that ethical argument. This is how the world works, I don't think we should get bogged down in whether it's technically entirely OK for those poor Russian-govt-linked billionaires to have less yachts. It's in our power, it's in our interest, and that's how the world works.

ajsnigrutin 5y ago
So wait... if we europeans wanted to get rid of eg. clinton for bombing in yugoslavia, and then bush of the middle eastern crap (well, technically both bushes), we can just take away property of random rich americans?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- scotty79 5y ago
  Not random. All. And I fully expect the world to do it if USA ever does invade Mexico or Canda with tanks and starts shelling civilians just because they want to annex them. American oligarchs have total influence over American government. If they allow such thing to happen they are materially responsible for the damage.
  - ajsnigrutin 5y ago
    > Not random. All. And I fully expect the world to do it if USA ever does invade Mexico or Canda with tanks and starts shelling civilians just because they want to annex them. Why mexico or canada? Why not for iraq? Afghanistan? Syria? Libya? Yemen? Jugoslavia? Why only for annexation and not for "just bombing" or even occupation, with yes, tanks? Shelling civillians? Like bombing a civillian train? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grdelica_train_bombing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grdelica_train_bombing A bus? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lu%C5%BEane_bus_bombing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lu%C5%BEane_bus_bombing How about escaping refugees? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_Albanian_refugees_near_Gjakova https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_Albanian_refug... Or a foreign embassy? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_bombing_of_the_Chinese_embassy_in_Belgrade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_bombing_of_the_C... Civillian tv station? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_the_Radio_Television_of_Serbia_headquarters https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_the_Radio_Tele... How about directly custer bombing a city? Twice. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ni%C5%A1_cluster_bombing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ni%C5%A1_cluster_bombing A hospital? https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/balkans/stories/brussels052199.htm https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/balkans... So you agree, that if US/NATO doesn't immediately pull out from eg. syria, that switzerland can take away googles property in Zurich?