should go. Art belongs to the person from whom the art was stolen. If that person is gone then the oldest child. There is no question about it. If there is no claim to a particular piece of art then the art should be sent lottery style to different approved museums.
share> Art belongs to the person from whom the art was stolen.
Well, that's the problem. If it was allegedly stolen 50 years ago, can anyone prove it? A 65-year old's memory that her grandparents used to have a picture of a horse on the wall is not proof that the picture she sees today is the same one or that it was stolen.
Further, the Nazis were clever. Technically, they purchased much of the art and they kept meticulous records can provide sales receipts. Okay, they conducted the purchases at the point of a gun and the payment checks never arrived. But, those technicalities make the determination of legal possession difficult.
Also, theft has a statute of limitations. Otherwise, almost all pieces of artwork in museums would have to be given back to the place it was looted from.
--
What Would Jesus Do For A Klondike Bar (WWJDFAKB)?
Art NEVER belongs to the person who has stolen it or to whom it has been bequeathed. It NEVER belongs to anyone but the original legal possessor. And there should be an inexhaustible attempt to restore such works to those people.
share> Art NEVER belongs to the person who has stolen it or to whom it has bequeathed.
While I am sure that you want that statement to be true just because you say it forcefully, the truth of the matter is that you are wrong. The story clearly stated that Germany has a statute of limitations of 50 years. After 50 years, the owner from which it was stolen has absolutely no legal basis for recovering the item.
> And there should be an inexhaustible attempt to restore such works to those people.
Waste as much money as you want. The law clearly states that any claim to ownership is gone after 50 years.
Period.
End of Story.
Too bad.
You lose.
--
What Would Jesus Do For A Klondike Bar (WWJDFAKB)?
Why do I get the feeling that you have very strong Germanic roots?
But apart from that something might be legal but that does not make it moral. And because a corrupted government filled with thieves and liars says that something is legal will never make it right.
But that doesn't move you, does it Adolf?
> Why do I get the feeling that you have very strong Germanic roots?
That's an easy question. I am disagreeing with you and presenting the cold hard truth. You really don't like to hear that. You'd like to attack my basic premise, but that's rock solid -- the law is the law. So, instead, you try to discredit me by implying that I am some kind of closet Nazi. Thanks for asking!
> But apart from that something might be legal but that does not make it moral.
Correct. Morals and the law are two completely different concepts. Most of the time they do overlap (i.e., murder is immoral and illegal), but not always. You may not like it, but that's the way society's law works.
> But that doesn't move you, does it Adolf?
Does insulting me make you feel better about your incorrect interpretation of the law? I hope so. You seem like a person grasping at straws to feel good about yourself. Best of luck.
--
What Would Jesus Do For A Klondike Bar (WWJDFAKB)?