Seizing Assets


#1

Is it fair for the government to seize the assets of rich people?

I personally would say no. Seizing assets shoukd not be a thing done in any normal democracy. A fair compulsary purchase scheme is acceptable, but the government should not be able to just seize property and own it. I think it’s a breach of a governments mandate. They serve the people, not take away from them.


#2

Depends on if there is a monopoly, if the person is in debt, if the person is doing illegal things on their property, and if the person is providing a service in such a way that it puts people’s lives in debt (dialysis tubing companies for example, where they will deny people access to kidney donations).


#3

Would this not he necessarily done by the courts? Not really by government.


#4

is this assuming were sticking to liberal politics or does this question involve socialists as well?


#5

In my country our courts and government are intertwined


#6

Any politics.


#7

Where are you from?


#8

Canada, where the PM and Minister of Justice appoint the Judges of the Supreme Court, and where the Courts theoretically have control over the context of laws.


#9

In the UK, the term “government” generally refers to the executive branch of the country. I believe @John is referring to the elected government of the day enacting policies that unilaterally seize the assets of rich people, as opposed to the judiciary taking assets as a means of recourse for a crime or civil wrong.


#10

Ah I see. Then yes, it probably should not be allowed just for the state’s own greed.


#11

Isn’t this what taxation is?
If I don’t pay taxes on land I own, the government will at some point seize it.

I think that in principle, yes, the government should be able to seize assets. However that power should be at a very high and generally applied level. Allowing public officials to single out individuals and seize their assets is a fast-track to corruption.