Talk:Expropriation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Businesses

The last comment, "Businesses would do well always to remember that doing business is a privilege, and not a right -- and to conduct themselves accordingly." could be viewed as a political statement, and is certainly a philosophical one as it involves "rights" and is clearly biased toward a particular point of view. Also it contributes nothing to the stub or the definition/explanation of Expropraition. So I have removed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.9.247.204 (talk • contribs) 07:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the removed text may not have been philosophical. 14th ammendment protections just don't seem to apply outside of the United States, and almost all other countries in the 'western' world have far stricter laws about corporations needing to serve the public interest. Given that expropriation results in an immense loss of capital, and almost always an accompanying loss in wealth, I fail to see how such an important warning is necesarily biased: Perhaps simple rewording is in order? I would like to nominate "Well thought-out multinational investments frequently acknoledge that in many countries, doing business is officiallly considered a privilege, and not an basic right." as a more neutral replacement that preserves the necessary portion of the warning without the antiestablishment overtones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.81.229 (talk • contribs) 19:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect

This previously pointed to eminent domain, but expropriation is not the same as eminent domain so I removed the redir and created a stub. - FrancisTyers 22:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

How, specifically, is expropriation different from eminent domain? After reading this and the other article I don't understand the difference, and in fact eminent domain seems to indicate they're the same thing. - Brian Kendig 22:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Expropriation doesn't necessarily refer to the state. - FrancisTyers · 06:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
This article seems to focus on government expropriation - that's the same thing as eminent domain, right? It seems to duplicate a lot of information that's already in eminent domain. Would this article be better off merged into that one? - Brian Kendig 17:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps the information on government expropriation would be better in the eminent domain article. - FrancisTyers · 18:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I disagree that expropriation and eminent domain are the same thing - eminent domain is a term which is relatively specific to the US and so to merge expropriation and eminent domain would be a little disingenuous. Eminent domain also goes towards the assumption that the State has a legal right to appropriate the property (compensation aside) whereas expropriation is more commonly used in the context of illegality. Just as a State has a legal right to appropriate land which falls within its territorial boundaries through eminent domain, so may States or private individuals/companies expropriate property which they exercise no legal or jurisdictional control over. The end result may be the same - that property which belonged to you now belongs to another- but they are conceptually different. User:80.229.171.230 01:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)LawStudent
So Expropriation is either theft, robbery, or eminent domain. Which is it?
This article needs to be redirected to one of the three.Equinox137 (talk) 05:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I modified introduction per sources to explain what is the difference between expropriation and such things as eminent domain, ordinary robbery, or theft.Biophys (talk) 02:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
This seems fine to me. I personally don't see the difference between taxation and theft, but if I were to redirect the former to the latter, it would be POV. I think it's a similar case here. Socialists and communists see a difference here, that other people might not easily understand (myself included). Gigs (talk) 01:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Globalise and neutralise

This is not a particularly impartial statement deprives, reasonable expectations, reliable returns. Oh, my heart bleeds for those poor owners!

"Such expropriation thus deprives the owners of their reasonable expectations of reliable returns from such a proven business."

The article currently also unnecessarily focusses in the United States1. - FrancisTyers · 09:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


1Cry about it ...

[edit] Hull

The last paragraph of the article refers to Hull. Hull requires some disambiguation, the best I can find is John Hull. I have left it and hope someone with knowledge of the subject may be in a better position to provide the disambiguation required. Keith D 13:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Pyat rublei 1997.jpg

Image:Pyat rublei 1997.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)