House Passes Bill Urging Biden to Sell Seized Russian Yachts to Aid Ukraine
nytimes.comHow is this not a theft? (well, the law just was made up for this...that is not the question. Im puzzled on the principled law, moral and ethics argument trying to justify this, and whether implications were considered?). This is in my view a short-sighted, non-principled, purely emotional decision which, however, destroys the very foundations (globally) of individual-property rights on which modern western society (especially in the US) stands.
Such virtue signaling move by the US is projecting incredible one sided double standard (in absolute terms, not in relative to any other nation). Are these lawmakers aware of the un-intended consequences? or are they intended infact ? (Something the for instance P. Zeihan has be ranting about for a while -- de-globalization and US increasingly isolationist policies?)
You do understand that those sanctions are not here to be nice to those rich people?
The sanctions are in place for moral/ethical reasons.
I'm not sure if I follow your problem. i personally would keep the and let them rot.
The fifth amendment taking clause of the constitution prevents the government from just taking it and selling it.
It seems more reasonable than civil forfeiture. And it is hardly isolationist to support allies and beef up NATO.
I did not get the argument (yours and previous commenter). Are we saying that this is a theft de-facto and we are ok with that (we are morally correct despite 30 yrs of illegal numerous wars of US and NATO nonetheless), or is the argument that this is not a theft (and morality has nothing to do with it)?
Also, China, India and whole range of non-NATO countries are paying attention to the unilateral (and as far as one can tell, illegal [no due process, no mandate, etc]) grab of financial as well as other assets. For this reason I called it "isolationist" (in a diffusive long term manner).
If China invades Taiwan, does half of Vancouver go up for auction?