Interesting little moral conundrum here.
The family of General Francisco Franco is facing
legal action for refusing to co-operate with plans to open one of the
former dictator’s homes to the public.
The fascist
leader traditionally escaped the suffocating heat of Madrid in August
by decamping to the Pazo de Meirás, a rural estate near the town of
Sada in the north-western region of Galicia.
It was "donated" to him by the state at the end of the Spanish Civil War.
I think we know what "donated" means here?
The stand-off has left a sour taste in the mouths of local residents,
many of whom descend from those forcibly evicted from their homes when
they came under the Generalisimo’s control in 1938.
Right. However:
But the regional government now wants the estate
recognised as a place of "historical and cultural value", a status that
would ensure it is properly looked after and opened to the public at
least four days of every month.
The measure was
approved by a vote early this year but officials have been denied
access consistently by the family, who claim such a move is an invasion
of their privacy.
So, from this report we appear to have a legal system in which if you have a nice house the local council can insist that you open it up four days a month and let the general public wander through it.
The conundrum of course is that the latter is clearly illiberal. But then so was the original taking of the property. But, then again, so have been most of the acquisitions of land and property throughout history. At some point a line needs to be drawn and, OK, yes, he thieved and murdered to get it but it’s now 700 years, 300, 50, whatever later, and for society to continue to have property rights at all we’ve got to ignore that.
So how many years is it?
Leave a Reply to Mark WadsworthCancel reply