Emneide til punditokraterne: en kommentar til Poul Høi’s kærlighedserklæring til Obama i Berlingske lørdag den 7/2.

“As soon as all our aides left, I went straight to the point, that no bank was going to lend him any money. They wanted to know who was going to succeed him if anything were to happen to him; all the bankers could see that he no longer looked healthy. Singapore banks had lent US$8 billion of the US$25 billion owing. The hard fact was they were not likely to get repayment for some 20 years. He countered that it would be only eight years. I said the bankers wanted to see a strong leader in the Philippines who could restore stability, and the Americans hoped the election in May would throw up someone who could be such a leader. I asked whom he would nominate for the election. He said Prime Minister Cesar Virata. I was blunt. Virata was a nonstarter, a first-class administrator but no political leader; further, his most politically astute colleague, defense minister Juan Ponce Enrile, was out of favour. Marcos was silent, then he admitted that succession was the nub of the problem. If he could find a successor, there would be a solution. As I left, he said, “You are a true friend.” I did not understand him. It was a strange meeting.”

Omtalte Enrile, jurist med speciale i international skatteret, har siden hen sagt om skatter at de ikke må være konfiskatoriske, undertrykkende, eller destruktive.

Professor på NYU, Thomas Nagel er inde på det samme i ”The Myth of Ownership” og andre steder.

Det virker intuitivt rigtigt, at der må være en øvre grænse for, hvad en hvilken som helst type af regime kan flytte over skatteyderne og for den sags skyld fremtidige genrationer. Og dermed hvad kreditorer kan forvente at få dækket af gæld. For hvad nu hvis kreditorer risikofrit kan medkonspirere med debitor mod 3’mand risiko frit? En sådan retsorden er ikke gyldig, i hvert fald ikke, hvor retstraditionen minder om den vestlige.

Som processerne efter wwII, så kan man godt gå løs på tidligere magthavere med uskreven ret. Og dermed også på andre medvirkende.

Privatretligt har domstole i Danmark og Hong Kong, og sikkert andre steder vendt tommelfingeren ned, i forhold til ubegrænsede kautioner/garantier, og så selv sat en grænse ud fra parternes kendelige forudsætninger.