Seizing Assets


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.


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).


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


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


In my country our courts and government are intertwined


Any politics.


Where are you from?


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.


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.


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


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.