What do libertarians think of Mossadegh's nationalization of Iranian oil back in the early 1950s?

[whichphilosophy]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Mosaddegh

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_nationalization_of_the_Iran_oil_industry_movement

I think there is a lot of meat to this topic. In my opinion, the Anglo-Persian Oil Company deserved a level of recompense for the oil equipment and technological knowledge but nothing for the oil itself.

Also, what about current and more recent nationalizations or attempts?

The CIA aided a coup to remove a democratically elected president of a then progressive country. The US and Britain wanted to control Iran's oil assets as their own.

As I understand and given in the speech, he did intend compensation as follows:

Mosaddegh explained his nationalization policy in a 21 June 1951 speech:

“ Our long years of negotiations with foreign countries...have yielded no results thus far. With the oil revenues we could meet our entire budget and combat poverty, disease, and backwardness among our people. Another important consideration is that by the elimination of the power of the British company, we would also eliminate corruption and intrigue, by means of which the internal affairs of our country have been influenced. Once this tutelage has ceased, Iran will have achieved its economic and political independence. The Iranian state prefers to take over the production of petroleum itself. The company should do nothing else but return its property to the rightful owners. The nationalization law provide that 25% of the net profits on oil be set aside to meet all the legitimate claims of the company for compensation. It has been asserted abroad that Iran intends to expel the foreign oil experts from the country and then shut down oil installations. Not only is this allegation absurd; it is utter invention.

I also believe that he would not have expelled foreign experts because iran did not have many trained staff at the time, and the oil installations would have been inoperable and unrepairable.

His democratically elected secular government was replaced by an un-elected Shah. Fanatics such as the Ayotolah Khomeini were simply fringe groups in exile but his appeal constantly grew.

The heresy was to dare own its own oil and with the wealth meet the national budget requirements.

This is an early example how the US and UK created a breeding ground for fanatics to flourish

 

[barbos]

I have a better question, does average american know about this history?
Is it taught in american schools?

 

[J842P]

I have a better question, does average american know about this history?

No, no they do not.

 

[barbos]

I have a better question, does average american know about this history?

No, no they do not.

Then "those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it"
I know it is offtopic, but is any recent and bad US history taught in schools?

 

[J842P]

No, no they do not.

Then "those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it"
I know it is offtopic, but is any recent and bad US history taught in schools?

Sure. I was taught about these things in school. I was fortunate enough to go to a particularly good school system, but the quality of education varies widely. History is one of those subjects that can be grossly politicized in small, provincial schools. In any event, although I know the people that went to school with mere were taught it, I also know most weren't really paying attention and probably never retained it for long after the exam.

 

[barbos]

Then "those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it"
I know it is offtopic, but is any recent and bad US history taught in schools?

Sure. I was taught about these things in school. I was fortunate enough to go to a particularly good school system, but the quality of education varies widely. History is one of those subjects that can be grossly politicized in small, provincial schools. In any event, although I know the people that went to school with mere were taught it, I also know most weren't really paying attention and probably never retained it for long after the exam.

So average american is/was taught in school that US democracy overthrew democratically elected government just because it decided to stop stealing oil by western oil companies?

 

[J842P]

Sure. I was taught about these things in school. I was fortunate enough to go to a particularly good school system, but the quality of education varies widely. History is one of those subjects that can be grossly politicized in small, provincial schools. In any event, although I know the people that went to school with mere were taught it, I also know most weren't really paying attention and probably never retained it for long after the exam.

So average american is/was taught in school that US democracy overthrew democratically elected government just because it decided to stop stealing oil by western oil companies?

I can't speak towards the "average" American history curriculum. As I stated, the public schools where I grew up were particularly good, and school systems vary wildly in quality. I know it is part of the AP US history curriculum.

Here is an example of scoring guidelines on an essay portion of the exam where (if you ctrl-f 'Ajax') you will see that Ajax is one of the expected examples a student might give in that essay.

 

[Jayjay]

They should get no compensation.

They took a risk and lost.

That is what risk means, you might lose.

So it's perfectly ok for your landlord to walk off with all your property?

When you sign a lease with your landlord, you have a pretty good understanding that he can't do that because you have the police and justice system on your side if he were to try it. When you sign a deal with a sovereign country that can pretty much do what it wants within its own borders you don't have that external protection. That's like living in a libertarian wonderland.

 

[whichphilosophy]

So long as the agreements were reasonable at the time they were made it doesn't matter if the market changes.

If someone made an improper agreement due to bribery or the like then it should be nullified on that basis.

To simply nationalize something without fair compensation (and it's never fair compensation) is armed robbery.

They should get no compensation.

They took a risk and lost.

That is what risk means, you might lose.

The elected Iranian government actually did propose compensation. This did not stop the CIA from launched its coup to change to an un-elected government under the Shah. This eventually backfired and along came Ayatollah Khomeini.

 

[coloradoatheist]

So it's perfectly ok for your landlord to walk off with all your property?

When you sign a lease with your landlord, you have a pretty good understanding that he can't do that because you have the police and justice system on your side if he were to try it. When you sign a deal with a sovereign country that can pretty much do what it wants within its own borders you don't have that external protection. That's like living in a libertarian wonderland.

A libertarian does believe in rule of contract and rule of law, so yes they do believe that the contract provisions should be upheld. Instead of the government just nationalizing it it would go to a neutral court who would then decide if both sides held up their end of the contract and if they weren't then they could give a punishment to one side or the other.


So what we have here, is two sides break rules of law. So if you are saying that a company shouldn't be surprised that law is broken, why would you be able to saw the rule of law about not overturning a government is valid?

 

[whichphilosophy]

When you sign a lease with your landlord, you have a pretty good understanding that he can't do that because you have the police and justice system on your side if he were to try it. When you sign a deal with a sovereign country that can pretty much do what it wants within its own borders you don't have that external protection. That's like living in a libertarian wonderland.

A libertarian does believe in rule of contract and rule of law, so yes they do believe that the contract provisions should be upheld. Instead of the government just nationalizing it it would go to a neutral court who would then decide if both sides held up their end of the contract and if they weren't then they could give a punishment to one side or the other.


So what we have here, is two sides break rules of law. So if you are saying that a company shouldn't be surprised that law is broken, why would you be able to saw the rule of law about not overturning a government is valid?

Given that the Iranians were making provisions for compensation, this could have been done without a court. However the US then 'took the law into its own hands' and the rest is history.

Arbitration, Mediation or worse litigation is something we can consider as a last resort if talking fails.

 

[repoman]

found this short phrase on /pol/ and it applies here:

"Subversion is the cheapest path to victory."

Ha, the USA freaking out about subversive elements in the 50s while subverting the democracies of other nations.

 

[coloradoatheist]

A libertarian does believe in rule of contract and rule of law, so yes they do believe that the contract provisions should be upheld. Instead of the government just nationalizing it it would go to a neutral court who would then decide if both sides held up their end of the contract and if they weren't then they could give a punishment to one side or the other.


So what we have here, is two sides break rules of law. So if you are saying that a company shouldn't be surprised that law is broken, why would you be able to saw the rule of law about not overturning a government is valid?

Given that the Iranians were making provisions for compensation, this could have been done without a court. However the US then 'took the law into its own hands' and the rest is history.

Arbitration, Mediation or worse litigation is something we can consider as a last resort if talking fails.

I'm not sure which concessions you are talking about specifically. The British asked the US to intervene too.

But the gripe about the oil company was severalfold, workers not paid enough and the profits not being split for how they wanted. There was a contract in place and the courts could decide if the oil company was avoiding its contract obligations.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Given that the Iranians were making provisions for compensation, this could have been done without a court. However the US then 'took the law into its own hands' and the rest is history.

Arbitration, Mediation or worse litigation is something we can consider as a last resort if talking fails.

I'm not sure which concessions you are talking about specifically. The British asked the US to intervene too.

But the gripe about the oil company was several fold, workers not paid enough and the profits not being split for how they wanted. There was a contract in place and the courts could decide if the oil company was avoiding its contract obligations.

The intent of the still colonialist British was to control its oil interests as before as they didn't want nationalization though as you said, it could have gone to a court (or arbitration/mediation).

 

[barbos]

Contracts with governments are not worth much, and it is worth even less if it is corrupted government.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Contracts with governments are not worth much, and it is worth even less if it is corrupted government.

Do you (also) mean the British and Americans?

 

[J842P]

When you sign a lease with your landlord, you have a pretty good understanding that he can't do that because you have the police and justice system on your side if he were to try it. When you sign a deal with a sovereign country that can pretty much do what it wants within its own borders you don't have that external protection. That's like living in a libertarian wonderland.

A libertarian does believe in rule of contract and rule of law, so yes they do believe that the contract provisions should be upheld. Instead of the government just nationalizing it it would go to a neutral court who would then decide if both sides held up their end of the contract and if they weren't then they could give a punishment to one side or the other.


So what we have here, is two sides break rules of law. So if you are saying that a company shouldn't be surprised that law is broken, why would you be able to saw the rule of law about not overturning a government is valid?

It is meaningless to talk about laws governing what various nation-states do to each other. There is no government of the entire world that could enforce such laws. International politics is anarchy. The strong do what they will with the weak. The point isn't that overthrowing Mossadegh was "invalid," the point was that it was really, really stupid. And anyway, the Iranian government did not break any "rule of law."

 

[barbos]

Contracts with governments are not worth much, and it is worth even less if it is corrupted government.

Do you (also) mean the British and Americans?

Yes, I believe if they really really want to screw you they will always find a way.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Do you (also) mean the British and Americans?

Yes, I believe if they really really want to screw you they will always find a way.

During that time, Britain was still stuck in its colonial arrogance, which shared a similar with American attitude at the time, where they expected to dictate terms for others to follow.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Do you (also) mean the British and Americans?

Yes, I believe if they really really want to screw you they will always find a way.

During that time, Britain was still stuck in its colonial arrogance, which shared a similar with American attitude at the time, where they expected to dictate terms for others to follow.