NationStates Jolt Archive

Say you were the boss of a company that had a factory in Sampleland. After a change of government the new regime wants to take away your factory by force, signing into law the rule that your factory is now property of the people of Sampleland. As compensation you get $1.

Do you think it would be justified to hire mercenaries to defend your factory against the police or military of the Sampleland regime? Would it be justified to try and topple the government? How much resistance against expropriation should be allowed?

And would it matter why they are expropriating it? If they needed it to make baby clothes, would it be different than if they needed it to make Zyklon-B?

No, I don't think you'd be justified in trying to topple the government. Shitty for your loss (or mine in this hypothetical), but that does not mean that the people of that nation need their government messed with by outsiders. Absolutely not.

You'd certainly be justified in raising an international upset over the whole ordeal, but not mercenaries...mercenaries are always a bad idea.

If some evil regime came to power in my country, as an example, I'd burn my business to the ground before I gave it over, sure. But if I simply had a factory in some other country, I'd have nothing to gain by ordering that sort of thing, so it would be a tough call. A simple coup by a similar regime to the last one might not merit scorched-earth opposition, but a coup by a genocidal one certainly would.

Why risk bloodshed when you can cut your losses and move the factory to China?

You'd certainly be justified in raising an international upset over the whole ordeal, but not mercenaries...mercenaries are always a bad idea.

Well, unless your mercenaries are good enough to control a region. It's possible in some third-world countries, I would think. :p

Why risk bloodshed when you can cut your losses and move the factory to China?

Unless we're already talking about China....*dum dum duuuummmmmm*

Answer: It was never your factory to begin with, it was always the collective property of the products of labour as the necessary complement to the collectivist program. It exists only for the aid of all for the satisfaction of the needs of each being the only rule of production and consumption, which corresponds to the principle of solidarity.

Private property is a myth, if you really was true you wouldn't have to pay tax and a part of your wealth to the common good.

Answer: It was never your factory to begin with, it was always the collective property of the products of labour as the necessary complement to the collectivist program. It exists only for the aid of all for the satisfaction of the needs of each being the only rule of production and consumption, which corresponds to the principle of solidarity.

Private property is a myth, if you really was true you wouldn't have to pay tax and a part of your wealth to the common good.
Nuts. Guess I'd better turn my computer in to the rest of my family...

Nuts. Guess I'd better turn my computer in to the rest of my family...

And who owns the telephone line which you use for your internet, and the power grid which powers it (dont tell me there privatized in the US:()

And who owns the telephone line which you use for your internet, and the power grid which powers it (dont tell me there privatized in the US:()

Oh my...

Oh my...
?

Answer: It was never your factory to begin with, it was always the collective property of the products of labour as the necessary complement to the collectivist program.
That sentence doesn't even make sense.

?

Telephone lines have gone out of style around here. Unfortunately, I am still stuck using one.

That sentence doesn't even make sense.

Read North Korea's manifesto. See the stunning resemblance. Scratch your head at the empty rhetoric.

Telephone lines have gone out of style around here. Unfortunately, I am still stuck using one.
Oh, well we still use them for broadband here. My point was, people shouldn't complain about expropriation when a good deal of the daily things they take for granted are public utilities etc.

Oh, well we still use them for broadband here. My point was, people shouldn't complain about expropriation when a good deal of the daily things they take for granted are public utilities etc.

Uh, that does not logically follow. Yes, I am using a public utility--the power--for my computer, but I could just as easily purchase a generator of some kind to use instead.

Private property is private property. Just because some private property utilizes public utilities does not mean that such property suddenly belongs to the public.

Uh, that does not logically follow. Yes, I am using a public utility--the power--for my computer, but I could just as easily purchase a generator of some kind to use instead.

Private property is private property. Just because some private property utilizes public utilities does not mean that such property suddenly belongs to the public.

Alright then, live a whole week without using any public utility, tell me how it goes.

Whatever money I would be making from that factory isn't worth killing over.

Alright then, live a whole week without using any public utility, tell me how it goes.

It is one thing to live in a society, benefit from it and give back accordingly. It is also another thing to dedicate oneself to one's society.

It is quite another to be utterly subservient to that society. None of us here is anywhere near the place where such sacrifice (the factory) would be anything but.

Well I suppose it is marginally better than if the government of Sampleland decided to seize peoples' houses and give them to a large corporation to build a factory or a hotel, so that they could increase tax revenue. Of course that could never happen in a freedom loving country...

Well I suppose it is marginally better than if the government of Sampleland decided to seize peoples' houses and give them to a large corporation to build a factory or a hotel, so that they could increase tax revenue. Of course that could never happen in a freedom loving country...

Just go to Argentina and get a little bit of both situations, yours and the OPs.

Bosses conspire with government to open the economy to the influences of the IMF and international economic system in general. Local economic system subsequently tanks in 2001 and the bosses take up all the money that's left and skip town, leaving factory workers standing outside locked factories with no jobs. Workers then occupy the factories and form cooperatives to own and run them directly and collectively. Workers are so successful in their new enterprise that they attract the attention of previous bosses who are now running back to Dodge in order to reclaim "their" property, now that the workers have gone to the trouble of making the factories economically viable again. Workers show up to "their" factories one day to find the gates locked...and guarded by riot police and military forces complements of government at the behest of the bosses. (For a more in-depth examination of what is described in this paragraph, see also the film The Take (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Take))

Actually, on second thought, this situation is almost nothing like the OPs, as the expropriation was done directly by the workers after being throughly screwed by the boss and the state.

I find violence abhorent, and I'd prefer to avoid other sorts of force whenever possible. That said, the actions of workers can, in some situations, be considered as the recovery of stolen property (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers%27_self-management#South_America) from thieves public and private.

That's a revolution I can dance to.

Say you were the boss of a company that had a factory in Sampleland. After a change of government the new regime wants to take away your factory by force, signing into law the rule that your factory is now property of the people of Sampleland. As compensation you get $1.

Well, I doubt it really ever was "my" legitimate "property", since it was probably made by others' workforce. Property applies to think you make yourself, or you buy at their legitimate value, but when you hire workforce, underpay it, and take the profit to "buy" something, it's not legitimate anymore, since it comes from taking others' work.

Do you think it would be justified to hire mercenaries to defend your factory against the police or military of the Sampleland regime? Would it be justified to try and topple the government? How much resistance against expropriation should be allowed?

The main question for that is how this government went to power, how much it is supported by the population, and methods it use. If it's an elected government, supported by the population, and not using too harsh methods (not opening fire on demonstrators, ...), then you are not justified to try to topple it with violence (you can of course do propaganda and demonstrations and whatever), or to resist it with violence. If the government is illegitimate because it took power by force, without the people's support, and uses violence massively itself, then you're allowed to resist to it violently if, and only if, you cannot resist in other ways.

And would it matter why they are expropriating it? If they needed it to make baby clothes, would it be different than if they needed it to make Zyklon-B?

Yes, it matters a lot. The only reason for which you can be allowed to use violence against the government if this government works against the interest of the people (by oppressing it, leaving it in misery, ...). If they want to make baby clothes or anything that'll profit from the population, you're not allowed to use violence against it, even if it may cost you money or such.

Another reason would be if your life, or the one of a beloved one, is directly threatened, but I don't think it's be the case in your fictional situation.

Bosses conspire with government to open the economy to the influences of the IMF and international economic system in general.
That's not exactly what happened. The rest is true though.

Well, I doubt it really ever was "my" legitimate "property", since it was probably made by others' workforce. Property applies to think you make yourself, or you buy at their legitimate value, but when you hire workforce, underpay it, and take the profit to "buy" something, it's not legitimate anymore, since it comes from taking others' work.
Let's assume you didn't underpay anyone*, but paid legal wages all of your employees were happy with. If you want, pretend you're Body Shop (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Body_Shop) or something.

*And no, Marxist criticism of employment compensation is not and has never been valid, nor is it the topic of the thread.

The main question for that is how this government went to power, how much it is supported by the population, and methods it use...
Why? Why are the ruling clique's actions justified in one case and not in the other? How is their interaction with you and your factory affected by the relationship they have with an unrelated third party?

Do you think it would be justified to hire mercenaries to defend your factory against the police or military of the Sampleland regime?

Almost certainly not. Ownership of a factory is generally not worth killing over.

The more interesting question is whether the act is legitimate on the part of the government. I'd say yes, as long as the government itself is legitimate and democratic, and the factory is expropriated as part of a general policy, not as an isolated event. (If it's expropriated, say, to build a highway, you deserve compensation, because the problem then is not the ownership itself, but the location. The government denying you compensation is just conveniently and unjustly cutting corners.)

And would it matter why they are expropriating it?

Yes, but only indirectly.

If it's for a really evil purpose, you might be justified in defending your factory--but not to defend your right to your property, rather to interfere with the government's plans.

Why? Why are the ruling clique's actions justified in one case and not in the other?

Because your ownership of the factory is not just "there." It's not a private matter of your own. It's closer to a social trust--"we use the institution of private property in certain circumstances because it brings us benefits, but we reserve the right to revoke it, in whole or in part, when we want to."

Society has the right to revoke your ownership of the factory, because it isn't "yours" in an absolute sense--but an illegitimate, undemocratic government merely claiming to represent society does not. That would be arbitrary.

Society has the right to revoke your ownership of the factory, because it isn't "yours" in an absolute sense--but an illegitimate, undemocratic government merely claiming to represent society does not. That would be arbitrary.
But you know as well as I do that society is an abstract concept, a description rather than something that exists in a physical sense. Governments on the other hand do exist, and they claim some sort of connection between their goons and the idea of society. How do we know this connection ever exists? Afterall, every link even a liberal, democratic government can offer is indirect through things like "a majority voted for us".

I know that government exists as a legal entity I can make contracts with and that hopefully will safeguard the contracts I make with others. It makes sense for me to view it as such.

My interaction with society (insofar as it is even possible) is best undertaken through dealing with various members of it, rather than a government whose claim to representativeness is ultimately unprovable.

The beauty of that interpretation is of course that society ceases to exist as a body in reality. Any action by anyone is only the action of that person or that organisation. If an angry mob burns down my factory, it's the angry mob and not society that disagrees with me. If government violates previous agreements (implicit or explicit) and expropriates it, it's government and not society that disagrees with me. Society is limited to a word historians can later use to describe general tendencies within the population.

And once we take that view, the expropriation of the factory is simply a matter of might is right. And in that case, I could try to use my own might (maybe greater might if I'm a multinational, multi-billion dollar corporation with a mercenary army) to be right.

But you know as well as I do that society is an abstract concept

No, it isn't.

In this case, I mean it quite non-abstractly: the people of the community.

How do we know this connection ever exists? Afterall, every link even a liberal, democratic government can offer is indirect through things like "a majority voted for us".

Yeah... which means they have broad social approval for their actions.

My interaction with society (insofar as it is even possible) is best undertaken through dealing with various members of it,

Nonsense.

In dealing with "various members of it" you are exposed to only a limited subset of the relevant population, and on terms that may be very much unequal.

rather than a government whose claim to representativeness is ultimately unprovable.

How is it unprovable?

And once we take that view, the expropriation of the factory is simply a matter of might is right.

And so is your ownership of it... because the only good justification for private property over things like factories rests on the social benefit they bring.

Hey, do you know what would be even better, if they compensated you nothing, and even better sent troops to occupy it, just like when our mutual friend Hugo pwned Exxon, that's super lulz.

Say you were the boss of a company that had a factory in Sampleland. After a change of government the new regime wants to take away your factory by force, signing into law the rule that your factory is now property of the people of Sampleland. As compensation you get $1.

Do you think it would be justified to hire mercenaries to defend your factory against the police or military of the Sampleland regime? Would it be justified to try and topple the government? How much resistance against expropriation should be allowed?

And would it matter why they are expropriating it? If they needed it to make baby clothes, would it be different than if they needed it to make Zyklon-B?That's a very difficult question. And perhaps the only possible way of answering it would be say that it depends entirely on the individual circumstances.

1) You don't state how the government was changed - by force or through elections or another means.

2) Is it now property of the state or of a cooperative? Does either have adequate experience in managing said factory?

3) Why are they expropriating the factory - is the expropriation merely a personal grudge? And what is the intended use of the factory/land?

4) Why isn't the government willing/able to provide full monetary compensation?

5) Has the company been a responsible member of the community, or has it been impoverishing the community through its actions?

6) Does the size of the factory matter? Compare a huge corporation to a small workshop that employs 5-10 people.

One example I was thinking of is does the work of an artist belong to the artist or to society? After all the artist, like the boss, has paid others to supply him with materials and the main action of the artist and the boss has been to consider how best to put these materials together.


Hmm... In any case I think I would probably land on the side of the factory owner unless a case could be proven as to why said expropriation without compensation was justified. I don't like phrases like 'for the greater good' and others like it. They are generally spouted by easily corruptible idealists.

If the factory owner is a citizen of the country then he probably has a right to rebellion against the government that is oppressing him. Though mercenaries... I just don't like hired guns. They would make him no better than the government that is trying to take the factory. Since all it would come down to is how had the most money to hire the most goons.

I think the lines of private ownership vs. collective ownership are being blurred and that's exactly how this sort of thing gets justified.

If I own a factory in Sampleland, it is my personal property (assuming my company doesn't publicly trade its stock.) Does the community rely on it for employment, and I rely on the community for labor? Yes, but that's the mutual informal contract we've entered into. At any time, I have the right to close my factory, to expand it, to tear it down and replace it, sell it, give it away, take the company public, etc. It's mine to do with as I see fit.

If the Government siddenly decides to take it and pay me $1 for it, that's a form of tyranny. At best, it represents the masses using force against me to take my property. At worst, it's an example of despotism.

If it were happening in real life, I'd destroy it before I'd allow something that I built to benefit a tyrannical Government. I'd burn it to the ground, demolish it, whatever it took. Would it harm the local community? Probably, but maybe on some level that would give them the impetus to rise against the Government of Sampleland and replace it with one that was better suited to them, in which case I'd gladly rebuild it.

Hey, do you know what would be even better, if they compensated you nothing, and even better sent troops to occupy it, just like when our mutual friend Hugo pwned Exxon, that's super lulz.

That situation was a lot more complex than that, but it seems that you do not realize the shades there.

Allow me to put it into a much simpler analogy.

A college student named Bob buys a shiny, new TV for next year, but gets it at a discount from a guy who works for the company. He can't take it home because it's too big, so he gives it to his friend Bill, who's staying on campus over the summer, to use until he comes back. When Bob does come back, Bill claims that the TV belongs to him now because it was sitting in his on-campus apartment all summer, and he paid the electric bill for said TV's use. Is Bill justified in taking the TV, and what can Bob do to get it back?

If I thought I had a prayer of actually keeping my factory (and still profiting off it, there's no point in keeping land just because it is mine only to have it turn into a money hole) then I'd try. More than likely, this would mean a frenzy of bribing and politicking, as opposed to openly bringing in an army.
If, however, I realized that I had no chance of holding onto the factory, I'd burn it to the ground and leave the country with all speed. Sure, it is a crude and selfish thing to do, but it was pretty damn crude of the government to think that offering me one dollar was funny.

All that assumes, of course, that I haven't already taken out an insurance policy against this sort of thing happening.

That's a very difficult question. And perhaps the only possible way of answering it would be say that it depends entirely on the individual circumstances.

1) You don't state how the government was changed - by force or through elections or another means.

2) Is it now property of the state or of a cooperative? Does either have adequate experience in managing said factory?

3) Why are they expropriating the factory - is the expropriation merely a personal grudge? And what is the intended use of the factory/land?

4) Why isn't the government willing/able to provide full monetary compensation?

5) Has the company been a responsible member of the community, or has it been impoverishing the community through its actions?

6) Does the size of the factory matter? Compare a huge corporation to a small workshop that employs 5-10 people.

One example I was thinking of is does the work of an artist belong to the artist or to society? After all the artist, like the boss, has paid others to supply him with materials and the main action of the artist and the boss has been to consider how best to put these materials together.


Hmm... In any case I think I would probably land on the side of the factory owner unless a case could be proven as to why said expropriation without compensation was justified. I don't like phrases like 'for the greater good' and others like it. They are generally spouted by easily corruptible idealists.

If the factory owner is a citizen of the country then he probably has a right to rebellion against the government that is oppressing him. Though mercenaries... I just don't like hired guns. They would make him no better than the government that is trying to take the factory. Since all it would come down to is how had the most money to hire the most goons.

QFT. Sensible post is sensible.

Nah, I'd give them what they paid for: A factory leveled in a massive industrial (see: Nitroglycerin) explosion, preferably with some nasty contaminants floating around.

I'd probably also add that I would strategically locate some thermite around the factory, in order to permanently obliterate certain high-value pieces of equipment.

Hey, do you know what would be even better, if they compensated you nothing, and even better sent troops to occupy it, just like when our mutual friend Hugo pwned Exxon, that's super lulz.

Do you get a boner when you visualize this sort of thing? Because that sounds almost exactly like people on the far right who thrill in police beating down protesters.