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

[repoman]

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?

 

[dismal]

I would generally support private ownership of the subsurface mineral rights belonging to the surface land owner unless and until contractually bifurcated, with a regulatory authority developing field rules to ensure safe and efficient development of the resource.

Where government is the surface owner I support the same thing, except the government would manage an orderly and competitive process to auction off mineral rights not unlike what the US does in federal waters and lands today.

 

[repoman]

I think that the difference is that the oil was owned by a foreign company and got it from aggression. If it was owned by a Iranian company, nationalization would have taken a very different meaning.

 

[dismal]

I think that the difference is that the oil was owned by a foreign company and got it from aggression. If it was owned by a Iranian company, nationalization would have taken a very different meaning.

OK, in the event of historical events causing the world to not be like the above answer I would try to track back to the above answer.

 

[repoman]

damn, are you a lawyer or something? Your phrasing is hard to parse.

 

[untermensche]

Prior Iranian governments that did not represent the Iranian people made those deals.

It is buyer beware.

You make a deal with illegitimate governments and you may lose your investment.

At least that is how it should be.

It is called risk.

 

[Jayjay]

Prior Iranian governments that did not represent the Iranian people made those deals.

It is buyer beware.

You make a deal with illegitimate governments and you may lose your investment.

At least that is how it should be.

It is called risk.

The governments in question were legitimate at the time when the deals were made. Any government can become "illegitimate" in retrospect when replaced by another, and thus also the risk is always there.

 

[untermensche]

Prior Iranian governments that did not represent the Iranian people made those deals.

It is buyer beware.

You make a deal with illegitimate governments and you may lose your investment.

At least that is how it should be.

It is called risk.

The governments in question were legitimate at the time when the deals were made. Any government can become "illegitimate" in retrospect when replaced by another, and thus also the risk is always there.

No non-democratic government is legitimate.

Democracy is the only thing that gives legitimacy to governments.

 

[ksen]

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

Hahaha, trick question! Libertarians don't think. Well . . . except for my good friend JasonHarvestdancer. I like him.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

 

[untermensche]

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.

 

[repoman]

Governments are often just armed thugs with a good PR team and judges. I shed no tears.

In a similar way, I also have little guilt backing a specific government's thugs if I get what I want out of it. Someone is gonna get fucked, don't want it to be me. The distant British thugs lost and the local Iranian thugs won. But the Brits are sneaky fucks and won in the end through the coup.

 

[J842P]

Prior Iranian governments that did not represent the Iranian people made those deals.

It is buyer beware.

You make a deal with illegitimate governments and you may lose your investment.

At least that is how it should be.

It is called risk.

The governments in question were legitimate at the time when the deals were made. Any government can become "illegitimate" in retrospect when replaced by another, and thus also the risk is always there.

A business making a deal with a foreign government is always a risk. Especially when that deal is made with a monarch to fund their extravagent lifestyle. A business is foolish if they take that risk, and that foolishness should not be encouraged by the business' governemt. Why should the company expect their government to intervene on their behalf? The overthrow of Mossedegh was a terrible decision, one that the United States has paid for severely. I hope it was worth it protect the interests of BP, or what was the the AIOC.

- - - Updated - - -

Governments are often just armed thugs with a good PR team and judges. I shed no tears.

In a similar way, I also have little guilt backing a specific government's thugs if I get what I want out of it. Someone is gonna get fucked, don't want it to be me. The distant British thugs lost and the local Iranian thugs won. But the Brits are sneaky fucks and won in the end through the coup.

They won because the the American government decided to do their dirty work. We were the ones who paid the price in blow-back.

 

[untermensche]

The overthrow of Mossedegh was a terrible decision, one that the United States has paid for severely.

The US has not paid anything for it.

Iranians and people in the region have paid the cost by having a theocracy in Iran.

 

[repoman]

it attacks our narcissism of being a blameless country!

That is quite a burden to bear, untermensche.

(assuming you think the government is the people)

 

[bilby]

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

Hahaha, trick question! Libertarians don't think. Well . . . except for my good friend JasonHarvestdancer. I like him.

Well, he is the only TRUE libertarian.

As are they all.

 

[J842P]

The overthrow of Mossedegh was a terrible decision, one that the United States has paid for severely.

The US has not paid anything for it.

Iranians and people in the region have paid the cost by having a theocracy in Iran.

Of course the Iranians paid the real costs. I am speak from a selfish perspective, note, the thread is directed at libertarians.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

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?

Nationalization was not the optimal solution, but it was a solution that was better than the preceding situation. Before Mosaddegh initiated the nationalization, Iran was put into a very bad situation by force to basically give away their oil to a foreign corporation.

Abrogating the contract with the Anglo-Persion Oil Company was the right thing to do. Preferably there could be a fair way to determine a new and more valid non-government owner instead of outright nationalization.

The subsequent overthrow of Mosaddegh and installation of the Shah was Iran being punished for doing the right thing (or at least the less wrong thing).

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

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

- - - Updated - - -

The overthrow of Mossedegh was a terrible decision, one that the United States has paid for severely.

The US has not paid anything for it.

Iranians and people in the region have paid the cost by having a theocracy in Iran.

The alternative to the Shah was Russian control.

Sorry, I've been in Iran under the Shah and I've been behind the Iron Curtain and other Russian client states. Iran was in better shape.

 

[J842P]

The alternative to the Shah was Russian control.

No, it wasn't. You are just making that up.