• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Does a government have the right to nationalize foreign assets?

Should they be allowed to take your farm?

  • Yes....if they pay me back the $100,000 I paid for it

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Yes... if they pay me full market value for my farm

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    10

Peter Grimm

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 13, 2011
Messages
10,348
Reaction score
2,426
Location
The anals of history
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Hypothetical situation...

Let's say you own a company that sells bananas. Say you buy a farm on a small island nation for $100,000. The reason you do this is because the quality of the bananas that can be grown on this island nation is superior to anything we could grow here in the States due to the natural climate and soil. The bananas you grow are extra yellow, and extra bendy. High quality, delectable bananas. So you sell a lot of them to happy American breakfast consumers, and your farm is very profitable.

Now let's say there is political unrest in this little island nation. Poverty is high, and the locals view your success with envy. Say a benevolent dictator takes over, and promises to take your farm (and all other foreign assets in the island nation) and give it to the locals to run.

Question - DOES THAT NATION HAVE THE RIGHT TO TAKE YOUR FARM?
 
The framing of the final question is where the trouble comes in. Nations and national governments have all the "rights" they can get away with. Talking about rights and nations will get you nowhere because nations don't have rights, they have capabilities.
 
One consideration when starting a business is the government. There's a reason nobody makes large investments in manufacturing plants/equipment in countries that change government frequently.
 
I agree with clownboy. Theoretically you can say they have no right or they do but ultimately the rights of property are protected by government.
 
Hypothetical situation...

Let's say you own a company that sells bananas. Say you buy a farm on a small island nation for $100,000. The reason you do this is because the quality of the bananas that can be grown on this island nation is superior to anything we could grow here in the States due to the natural climate and soil. The bananas you grow are extra yellow, and extra bendy. High quality, delectable bananas. So you sell a lot of them to happy American breakfast consumers, and your farm is very profitable.

Now let's say there is political unrest in this little island nation. Poverty is high, and the locals view your success with envy. Say a benevolent dictator takes over, and promises to take your farm (and all other foreign assets in the island nation) and give it to the locals to run.

Question - DOES THAT NATION HAVE THE RIGHT TO TAKE YOUR FARM?

You are screwed. Is it right? No. Do they have the right to take your farm? In this case might makes right. You screwed blued and tatooed.
 
My question is, are they within their right to do this, or should you have some recourse against them in a perfect world?

The framing of the final question is where the trouble comes in. Nations and national governments have all the "rights" they can get away with. Talking about rights and nations will get you nowhere because nations don't have rights, they have capabilities.
 
I left the question in the realm of the hypothetical because I don't want people's political affiliation or national identity to bias how they answer this question.

This scenario has played out many, many times during the course of history... and the response to it has varied.

My question is do you think the island nation has the moral right to take the farm, because it's part of that country, or do you think your claim to the farm as the owner of that farm entitles you to some recourse?

I agree with clownboy. Theoretically you can say they have no right or they do but ultimately the rights of property are protected by government.
 
Should you be allowed to sue that island nation in a US court? What recourse should you have internationally, if any?

You are screwed. Is it right? No. Do they have the right to take your farm? In this case might makes right. You screwed blued and tatooed.
 
My question is, are they within their right to do this, or should you have some recourse against them in a perfect world?

You do have recourse against them-- you can shoot back with your own weapons and all the hired gun thugs you can afford.

The world we live in is as perfect a world as we're ever going to get.
 
So "might makes right," like another poster said?

You do have recourse against them-- you can shoot back with your own weapons and all the hired gun thugs you can afford.

The world we live in is as perfect a world as we're ever going to get.
 
So "might makes right," like another poster said?

Who said anything about 'right'? 'Right' and 'wrong' are luxuries of hindsight, decisions made after the fact by whomever survives.

And, of course, the best way to survive is to win.
 
They shouldn't be allowed to take your farm, especially for the reason listed.
 
Who said anything about 'right'? 'Right' and 'wrong' are luxuries of hindsight, decisions made after the fact by whomever survives.

And, of course, the best way to survive is to win.

Years ago, there was a socialist takeover in Guatemala. At that time, Chiquita bananas (a US corporation) owned a large chunk of that country's banana farms. The socialists nationalized the farms and wanted to give them to the Guatemalans. In response, the CIA backed the resistance movement to the socialists, and successfully got them removed from power.

To this day, we are criticized in Latin America for intervening on behalf of Chiquita.

We have also been on the other side of the argument.

In the 1950's, British and French stockholders owned most of the Suez canal. A socialist leader came to power in Egypt, and nationalized it. Israel, Britain, and France declared war on Egypt. The USA applied heavy pressure on the British, French, and Israelies, on behalf of the Egyptians, and ultimately were successful in kicking the three out of Egypt. (Funny how nobody in the middle east remembers that.)
 
To this day, we are criticized in Latin America for intervening on behalf of Chiquita.

They have every right to criticize us. After all, they survived. All of their criticism combined wouldn't stop us from doing it again.

In the 1950's, British and French stockholders owned most of the Suez canal. A socialist leader came to power in Egypt, and nationalized it. Israel, Britain, and France declared war on Egypt. The USA applied heavy pressure on the British, French, and Israelies, on behalf of the Egyptians, and ultimately were successful in kicking the three out of Egypt. (Funny how nobody in the middle east remembers that.)

You expect gratitude? We had our reasons for doing it, and we profited greatly from it. Just like we're profiting from the policies they're complaining about today.
 
Governments don't really have "rights," they have powers. And they have the power to do whatever their legal system allows them to do. Whenever a person does business in another country, they run the risk that their will be political, legal, or economic changes that disrupt their business. That is baked into the cost of doing business.
 
Actually, it's your call whether we do it again. You're a voter. You get to decide if you want a government that intervenes on behalf of companies overseas and fights for our interests, or one that respects another nations borders and allows them to self-govern at any cost.

They have every right to criticize us. After all, they survived. All of their criticism combined wouldn't stop us from doing it again.



You expect gratitude? We had our reasons for doing it, and we profited greatly from it. Just like we're profiting from the policies they're complaining about today.
 
It depends.


If I buy land on some island nation, it's not acceptable for some two-bit communist dictator to take that land from me.


Now if some scummy foreigner buys land in America and there's a valid reason to take the land away from that foreigner, then I don't see a problem with it.
 
Actually, it's your call whether we do it again. You're a voter. You get to decide if you want a government that intervenes on behalf of companies overseas and fights for our interests, or one that respects another nations borders and allows them to self-govern at any cost.

Not really. The government does what it wants to do, and if it thinks the people won't support them, they just lie about it.

In any case, I would choose a government that supports our economic interests over one that sacrifices them for the benefit of aliens.
 
If I buy land on some island nation, it's not acceptable for some two-bit communist dictator to take that land from me.

Now if some scummy foreigner buys land in America and there's a valid reason to take the land away from that foreigner, then I don't see a problem with it.

That's all well and good as long as you recognize that those scummy foreigners are using the exact same thought processes and are just as morally justified in doing so as you are-- otherwise, this post is nothing more than outright hypocrisy.
 
Absolutely, If it is on the soil of another country it belongs to them in my view. Just like they can close your embassy of they want.
 
fidel-castro-halloween.jpg

Fidel will have your bananas.

It depends.


If I buy land on some island nation, it's not acceptable for some two-bit communist dictator to take that land from me.


Now if some scummy foreigner buys land in America and there's a valid reason to take the land away from that foreigner, then I don't see a problem with it.
 
Does it make a difference to you if the leadership of the country that's taking over the farm was elected by the people, or if it was a coup?

I mean, what if a dictator took over but the people didn't really want him there. If that dictator then tries to nationalize your farm, is that any different than if it were a more legitimate government?

Absolutely, If it is on the soil of another country it belongs to them in my view. Just like they can close your embassy of they want.
 
Does it make a difference to you if the leadership of the country that's taking over the farm was elected by the people, or if it was a coup?

I mean, what if a dictator took over but the people didn't really want him there. If that dictator then tries to nationalize your farm, is that any different than if it were a more legitimate government?

No, sovereign nations are just that sovereign, we could claim the people do or do not want a government but, no other country has the right to judge the system of another, the only time any infringement of sovereignty is justified is for extreme human rights violation, and only in the broadest sense of consensus of what constitutes those rights too, like genocide, not for example democracy.

Be it a king, or a democratic republic, sovereignty is sovereignty.
 
Hypothetical situation...

Let's say you own a company that sells bananas. Say you buy a farm on a small island nation for $100,000. The reason you do this is because the quality of the bananas that can be grown on this island nation is superior to anything we could grow here in the States due to the natural climate and soil. The bananas you grow are extra yellow, and extra bendy. High quality, delectable bananas. So you sell a lot of them to happy American breakfast consumers, and your farm is very profitable.

Now let's say there is political unrest in this little island nation. Poverty is high, and the locals view your success with envy. Say a benevolent dictator takes over, and promises to take your farm (and all other foreign assets in the island nation) and give it to the locals to run.

Question - DOES THAT NATION HAVE THE RIGHT TO TAKE YOUR FARM?

As others have pointed out, whether or not they have the right, they pretty obviously have the capability. However, there are provisions in international law that deal with this sort of thing, and depending on what kind of nation we're talking about, it is possible to recover some or all of your losses if you know where to bring suit.
 
Back
Top Bottom