- 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.
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.
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?
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.
To this day, we are criticized in Latin America for intervening on behalf of Chiquita.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?