Re: Banking Secrecy and Nazi Gold

[ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home)]

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:
> > "18. In general, possession constitutes the criterion of title of 
> > personal property, because no other means exist by which a knowledge of the 
> > fact to whom it belongs can be attained. A seller of a chattel is not, 
> > therefore, required to show the origin of his title, nor, in general, is a 
> > purchaser, without notice of the claim of the owner, compellable to make 
> > restitution; but, it seems, that a purchaser from a tenant for life of 
> > personal chattels, will not be secure against the claims of those entitled 
> > in remainder. Cowp. 432; 1 Bro. C. C. 274; 2 T. R. 376; 3 Atk. 44; 3 V. & B. 
> > 16."
> > 
> 
> My problem with Igor's model is that has a "gubmint" that can decide that
> although you possess something, you don't have a title to it.

Seems like it is a matter of value judgment.

To stretch your values a bit, suppose that someone steals your car
and I buy it. Suppose also that I have bodyguards so that you would 
not be able to use force to take it back.

Would you be content if you could not (if the system worked according to
your values) sue to get the car back?

> I don't think the cost of having a "gubmint" justifies the convenience(?)
> of having one's stolen property recovered.
> 
> I point Igor's attention to the two categories of real estate ownership in
> traditional Russian legal framework (probably borrowed from Poland and
> Germany...) - the kind that cannot be taken away by the state for any
> reasn (even as punishment for treason), and the kind that can be taken
> away, e.g., for non-paymet of taxes.

This is confiscation of property, ie, something that the owner has a title
to. A stolen car is not a property (as far as i understand it).

	- Igor.