Inabsolute Legal Property Rights and International Politics

[DarkWaters]

To what extent does a national government, who fails to domestically guarantee absolute property rights, have the moral authority to use force to secure the property rights of its citizens from foreign governments? My question is specifically in the context when the foreign government limits the usage of property that is within its borders and when the property is some form of capital.

This is obviously a highly contextual issue. A federal government who generally protects private ownership except in rare cases when it does not take action against domestic local governments who employ eminent domain sparingly (e.g. only for expanding city roads in heavily congested areas) should still possess the clear moral authority to challenge a foreign national government who is nationalizing its entire energy sector for the "good of the people".

What are the general principles that should be used here?

[softwareNerd]

Could your question be rephrased without the "foreign" part, or would that lose some important aspect? For instance: If a government fails to protect some rights and even violates other rights, does it have the moral authority to protect some other sets of rights? E.g. If a government uses eminent domain, does it have the moral authority to convict a pick-pocket?

[DarkWaters]

Could your question be rephrased without the "foreign" part, or would that lose some important aspect? For instance: If a government fails to protect some rights and even violates other rights, does it have the moral authority to protect some other sets of rights? E.g. If a government uses eminent domain, does it have the moral authority to convict a pick-pocket?

I intentionally wanted to involve the national governments of two countries. However, the direction you are proposing is interesting in itself. Perhaps it can be addressed separately. Both resolutions can eventually be unified with a stable set of principles.

Edited June 8, 2007 by DarkWaters

[softwareNerd]

This hinges on what's meant by "moral authority". In the sense you use it, would a lack of moral authority imply that a third party should be against the action?

Take a simple example. A mafia killer is walking by a park when he notices a bully take a younger child's toy; he steps in, returns the toy and scares the bully away. Did he have the "moral authority", in the sense you mean it?

[DavidOdden]

The general principle extends beyond the context that you specified, but is applicable there. The notion of "moral authority" doesn't mean that one agent is morally blemish free and the other is flawed; rather, it means that the "morally authoritative" agent is objectively correct on a particular point (and by correct, I mean "in rhetoric and action"). Imagine for example that Norway invades The Netherlands because The Netherlands heavily taxes something that Norway doesn't tax (clearly fiction, there being nothing in Norway that isn't taxed to death anyway). That would be hipocracy, not moral authority. If the US had invaded the Soviet Union to free the market, that would have been just -- that despit the fact that we do have taxes.

[DarkWaters]

Both of your responses were helpful, thank you.

So a government of a mixed economy nation is always justified in taking reasonable action to defend the property rights of its citizens overseas, even if the action is hypocritical.