Has a nation ever "nationalized" assets (i.e., taken over oil companies without compensating the owners) without also limiting freedom of speech, of the press, freedom to vote, etc.
Are the two always linked? Usually? Sometimes?
Thanks.
2006-09-28 03:08:27 · 7 answers · asked by American citizen and taxpayer 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
We are watching that in Venezuela. Nationalization of business, people who speak out going to jail, government owned media. It starts as a socialist government, and as in 1932 Germany, will end up a dictatorship.
There tends to be a correllation between the taking of private property (nationalization) and the gradual supression of other civil rights.
2006-09-28 03:26:21 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Always...nationalization and eminent domain are 100% curtailing civil rights. The people should always keep the government at bay. Civil rights that are chipped away always embolden governments to take more because the people will let them. Then one day you'll wake up with no freedom of speech, of the press (State Run Media), freedom to vote (Demorcratically Elected Dictator), etc.
2006-09-28 03:20:27 · answer #2 · answered by Laughing Man Copycat 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Not always, but it's difficult not to. After all, are you free to open your own business? Are you free to say, "hey this is wrong. I believe in capitalism". We're talking about the nature of human beings. Will the government officials once they have control of a country's assets live in a middle class house without HBO or will they live like kings giving just enough to keep the people from uprising?
2006-09-28 03:11:08 · answer #3 · answered by MEL T 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Those are just 2 of the steps followed by any Dictator , another is
Strict gun control / gun bans , don't forget the banning of books ( American Library Association ) .
2006-09-28 03:30:20 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The only exceptions that I can think of is when dictators take the assets for themselves and their friends.
2006-09-28 03:10:58 · answer #5 · answered by Clown Knows 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
That's the reason they 'nationalize', so it becomes theirs without paying for it. Otherwise, what's the point?
2006-09-28 03:18:02 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No example comes to mind where they have not gone hand in hand.
2006-09-28 03:18:24 · answer #7 · answered by ? 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋