Here we go again
Do you know what Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez said the other day? He was speaking at a televised ceremony in his presidential palace. In the room were representatives of Chevron, the American oil giant, and other multinational oil companies. They had just signed on to invest billions of dollars to exploit oil in Venezuela’s Orinoco basin.
“Dear friends, partners, allies,” Chavez told the assembly, “you know you have all the guarantees of our Constitution and our laws.”
Really? And exactly how strong are those guarantees?
Chevron might want to ask ExxonMobil about that. Whatever Chevron’s reasons (or rationalizations) for going in, the record of Venezuela’s treatment of foreign companies speaks for itself. Less than three years ago, Venezuela nationalized massive oil facilities operated by Exxon and several other western companies. They all had signed agreements guaranteeing long-term concessions. Chavez just tore those up and tossed them away.
I call it theft by engraved invitation. I say “theft” because I reject the widespread view that a nation owns the natural resources within its borders and is therefore entitled to seize private assets; when a state like Venezuela seizes private assets, I think that should be regarded as a kind of theft. And I say “engraved invitation” in reference to the so-called contracts that western companies sign with eyes wide open, delivering their advanced technology—and the engineers and technicians who understand and operate it—to the custody of thuggish governments with long histories of seizing private assets whenever they please.
What would happen if companies like Chevron and ExxonMobil were to stand up and declare that nationalization is theft? What if they called upon their own government to issue similar condemnations? What if such companies ceased propping up the world’s failing socialist economies?
I’d like to see what would happen to Chavez and his ilk if they were deprived of victims.
Image: WikiMedia Commons



A thoughtful reader sent in a comment I’d like to discuss, in response to my post, “
Much has been
It’s vital to see how the “
Today, the Supreme Court will be deciding whether to accept an appeal involving the following scenario:
Joseph Tanen operates a violin repair shop in Manhattan. His neighbors have not complained about noise (not surprising, since fixing violins is a delicate, quiet activity). Nobody has identified a fire hazard. Nobody has been bothered by a large amount of customer traffic in and out of his shop. Nobody has alleged that the shop is a nuisance. Nevertheless,
Eminent domain, the government’s power to seize private land for “public use,” was once confined to such humdrum business as condemning land for highways and power lines. But nowadays, eminent domain is being used to assemble large tracts of land for politically favored projects designed to fatten the tax rolls. According to Institute for Justice senior attorney Dana Berliner, writing recently in the
Entries (RSS)