3 ms·

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

by samhw 5y ago

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.

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

by samhw 5y ago

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

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.