Depends on the national interest. Cambridge University investigated the history of this a few years ago.

“the USA had all kinds of provision to ensure that foreigners invest in the country but do not control its economy. The US federal government had restrictions on foreigners’ ownership in agricultural land, mining, and logging. It discriminated foreign firms in banking and insurance, while prohibiting foreign investment in coastal shipping. It demanded that all directors of national banks have to be American citizens, while depriving foreign shareholders of voting rights in the case of federally-chartered banks. It also prohibited the employment foreign workers, thus implicitly disadvantaging foreign investors that wanted to import skilled labour from their home countries. At the state level, there were even more restrictions.”

A comparison of what is done in the global economy, in the name of ‘national interest’, would be fascinating.

is the propriety acquired by Mugabé’s cronnies legitimate

Well, no. But if in three generations the white farmers descendants tried to get it back from RM’s crony’s descendants, most civilized systems of law would rule that statute of limitations or adverse possession would have eliminated the claim.

Land distribution is almost never jusfitied. Additionally, my issue with Zimbabwe was the lack of the judicial process and the rule of law. If you want to distribute property, it should be done through a blind administrative process, with rights of appeal for the original owners, and distribution based on merit, not who you know (the problem in Korea).

If you want socialism, that’s fine—Sweden is a socialist system based on the rule of law. But most systems, such as Zimbabwe and Venezuala, are socialist systems giving persons in power the right and ability to favor their friends. And that’s wrong, no matter how you look at it.

the Zimbabwean Liberation War wasnt 50 years ago.. it ended in 1979. I bet most of the farmers weren’t fighting against Ian Smith’s regime either.

but here’s a question i wanted someone, anyone with some anarcho-capitalist leanings to answer: is the propriety acquired by Mugabé’s cronnies legitimate and scared ? can the state in the future deprive them or their children from it ? if yes, how exactly is it different from the state-backed acquisition of that same land by the white farmers ? wasnt there any coercision involved when they got it ?

so morally, how does it work ?

No citizen shall suffer unfavorable treatment on account of an act not of his own doing but committed by a relative.

Whoops… Oh well… I guess when you’re ignoring 13,1,

No citizen may be prosecuted for an act which does not constitute a crime under the law in force at the time it was committed, nor may he be placed in double jeopardy.

...there is no reason to follow 13,3 either….

As for FDR, that was creating a unified federal financial system; and nationalizations of property for public use is, if not desirable, within the scope of what a powerful state can generally do.

In this case, we’re talking about nothing more than Mugabe’s Zimbabwe—taking land away from people who are deemed not to deserve it due to their heritage, and giving it to others who deserve it because of their heritage. Although in Korea, like in Zimbabwe, I fear that eligibility for this property is not what grandpa did, but how buddy-buddy you are to the ruling mandarins.

A government’s entitlement to decide the rights of people within its territory?

That’s absolutely terrifying, and what we have a Bill of Rights for in the US.

Pretty absolute. For example, in 1933 US President Roosevelt certainly asked for all private gold to be turned in for paper money; more recently we still see nationalisations, and huge defaults on international debt (Argentina in 2001).

Incidentally, Argentina also thinks it owns more territory than the United Nations has assigned it.

60+ years later though ?