South African Farm seizures

fagin said:
It's a terrible idea, and can only lead to **** and misery.

Not sure what NZ has to do with it though?
Click to expand...
New Zealand wrestles with land issues.
Land is always cited as the unprintable commodity, yet we have vast tracts undeveloped.
What can be printed is land titles in ever diminishing sizes to accommodate untrammeled greed among the land bankers for their offspring.

The statistics show the land seizures are from those that had no anthropological stake in the continent, but this is just a fact in a dart board.
 
While it's tempting to believe that most people would struggle, even to the point of death, for the right to cast a vote in an election or for formal legal equality in reality people are often more motivated by desire for material well-being.

Many people were led to believe that ending apartheid wouldn't just end the legally mandated racial discrimination but more importantly lead to greater material well-being for them. Unfortunately the benefits were grossly inflated and the biggest profits went to those that already had the most to begin with: somewhat counter-intuitively ending apartheid, which mandated the legal superiority of white people, actually ended up being hugely beneficial to white people especially the rich ones.

Now more and more black people are starting to feel that they should take what they feel they are owed. In the end this could, as in Zimbabwe, lead to them as well as almost everyone else having even less.
 
Last edited:
Arcade22 said:
While it's tempting to believe that most people would struggle, even to the point of death, for the right to cast a vote in an election or for formal legal equality in reality people are often more motivated by desire for material well-being.

Many people were led to believe that ending apartheid wouldn't just end the legally mandated racial discrimination but more importantly lead to greater material well-being for them. Unfortunately the benefits were grossly inflated and the biggest profits went to those that already had the most to begin with: somewhat counter-intuitively ending apartheid, which mandated the legal superiority of white people, actually ended up being hugely beneficial to white people especially the rich ones.

Now more and more black people are starting to feel that they should take what they feel they are owed. In the end this could, as in Zimbabwe, lead to them as well as almost everyone else having even less.
Click to expand...
A grand council that would confer unneeded wealth by the minority could defuse.
This could be a better model than Marx.
 
I don't know enough about the issue. Did the original white settlers buy the land at a fair price or just take it? If the latter then I suppose they should forfeit it.

The fairest way would be for the government to buy the land but pay a reasonable price for it, or at least compensate the farmers in some way.
 
Arcade22 said:
While it's tempting to believe that most people would struggle, even to the point of death, for the right to cast a vote in an election or for formal legal equality in reality people are often more motivated by desire for material well-being.

Many people were led to believe that ending apartheid wouldn't just end the legally mandated racial discrimination but more importantly lead to greater material well-being for them. Unfortunately the benefits were grossly inflated and the biggest profits went to those that already had the most to begin with: somewhat counter-intuitively ending apartheid, which mandated the legal superiority of white people, actually ended up being hugely beneficial to white people especially the rich ones.

Now more and more black people are starting to feel that they should take what they feel they are owed. In the end this could, as in Zimbabwe, lead to them as well as almost everyone else having even less.
Click to expand...

I'm not South African, but I've been interested in this issue for some time, from a population genetics point of view, I suppose you could say. Because, as far as I'm aware, the expropriated land isn't going to the Khoisan inhabitants, whose ancestors the land was mostly taken from originally. Instead, it's being given to the majority Bantu population, who themselves only arrived in the area about 100 years before the Dutch settlers.

Some people may wonder why that matters. Afterall, they're all black, or all African. But these two populations have been genetically distinct for upwards of 100,000 years. To put that in perspective, that's before the ancestors of everyone outside of Africa actually left Africa (not including Neanderthals and Denisovans, of course).
 
Diablo said:
I don't know enough about the issue. Did the original white settlers buy the land at a fair price or just take it? If the latter then I suppose they should forfeit it.

The fairest way would be for the government to buy the land but pay a reasonable price for it, or at least compensate the farmers in some way.
Click to expand...

There was a really long thread on this a while back, so without rehashing it, first decide who the original occupants were.

Which would be the Khoi and San people, who were invaded by the Bantu people, who were kind of invaded by white people.

And who do you give land to, considering there were no actual owners at the time, just the chief of whatever tribe had taken over from the one before.

So just confiscating random farms doesn't really help anyone.

See also - Zimbabwe.
 
fagin said:
There was a really long thread on this a while back, so without rehashing it, first decide who the original occupants were.

Which would be the Khoi and San people, who were invaded by the Bantu people, who were kind of invaded by white people.

And who do you give land to, considering there were no actual owners at the time, just the chief of whatever tribe had taken over from the one before.

So just confiscating random farms doesn't really help anyone.

See also - Zimbabwe.
Click to expand...
Indeed Zimbabwe.

But in many countries the paradigm obtains
Winstone Churchill wrote a master piece if only I can remember the link.
Land ownership is a tyranny.
 
fagin said:
There was a really long thread on this a while back, so without rehashing it, first decide who the original occupants were.

Which would be the Khoi and San people, who were invaded by the Bantu people, who were kind of invaded by white people.

And who do you give land to, considering there were no actual owners at the time, just the chief of whatever tribe had taken over from the one before.

So just confiscating random farms doesn't really help anyone.

See also - Zimbabwe.
Click to expand...

You could keep state ownership of the land so all the people would benefit.
 
Samson said:
Indeed Zimbabwe.

But in many countries the paradigm obtainsWinstone Churchill wrote a master piece if only I can remember the link.
Land ownership is a tyranny.
Click to expand...

fagin said:
Wut?
Click to expand...

Samson said:
Churchill did say this, he was stating the obvious, land ownership is a completely unjust apportionment of resources. It confers power to a random hoard.
Click to expand...

Wut again.

I didn't notice him giving up his country pile to benefit the masses.
 
fagin said:
Wut again.

I didn't notice him giving up his country pile to benefit the masses.
Click to expand...

Here is what he said, and why not make this a core treatise for the thread?

http://www.landvaluetax.org/current...churchill-said-it-all-better-then-we-can.html

"LAND MONOPOLY is not the only monopoly, but it is by far the greatest of monopolies -- it is a perpetual monopoly, and it is the mother of all other forms of monopoly. Unearned increments in land are not the only form of unearned or undeserved profit, but they are the principal form of unearned increment, and they are derived from processes which are not merely not beneficial, but positively detrimental to the general public."
 
Last edited:
You started the thread. Land ownership is not exactly restricted to SA.

And really, so what? He's long dead and wrote loads of stuff. As did many other people.

Opium of the masses and suchlike.

You need to be a bit more specific.
 
fagin said:
You started the thread. Land ownership is not exactly restricted to SA.

And really, so what? He's long dead and wrote loads of stuff. As did many other people.

Opium of the masses and suchlike.

You need to be a bit more specific.
Click to expand...
No I do not. Your multinational position allows you a good perspective, if Churchill is right, so is the current SA government, if wrong, then 1909 is a distant country.
 
fagin said:
Once again, wut?
Click to expand...
I have no dog in this fight, but it is just the most critical issue on the planet, so why keep asking wut?
Europe is collapsing by some measures, tipping point and so on, I am not sure how why anyone would diminish the disparity between increasing ambition and diminishing resource.
 
fagin said:
And I hardly think it's the most critical issue on the planet.
Click to expand...
I bet it is for the farmers in SA who are being given 10% of theoretical value.
And it is in New Zealand, without labouring the detail, but all development land around Auckland is owned by China.
 
Rhodesia used to be the breadbasket of Africa. Now there is no commercial farming there and the white farmers have had their farms given to the black people, and to Mugabe and his cronies. The black people are anti-white and Britishers and Americans are ill-informed about it, with no practical knowledge of the situation there thanks to extreme liberal journalists. There is a bit of background in this newspaper article:

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5534449/South-Africas-white-farmers-likely-killed-police.html
 
'Rhodesia'? Did someone just fall out of an autogyro while travelling to the Prussian consulate in Siam?
 
Having seen the words of some folks actually in SA, it’s a bit more complex than wringing your hands and crying “but...but...Zimbabwe!!!”

To whit (and I expect I’ll be corrected when our own native SA members come to the thread).

1) A large amount of land is owned by very few, and they have resisted all forms of voluntary land reform

2) Most of the land they are farming was seized in living memory. This isn’t some ‘our ancient tribal lands’ thing.

3) The land reform is being considered via legislation with probable market value compensation. By comparison Zimbabwe was purely authoritarian cronyism and massively disorganized as well.

4) All that has happened is some public hearings. There’s a lot more steps that will need to happen before anything even starts. The President has stated that the rgame forms will not happen if they threaten food security or economic stability.

5) The constant comparisons to Zimbabwe is often just pure well poisoning.
 
I think the land owners have waited too long to sell out.

They should just take the 10% or 20% and leave.

They can't sell the land now because no one is going to buy land that the government is about to take, and probably give away.
 
LTC8K6 said:
I think the land owners have waited too long to sell out.

They should just take the 10% or 20% and leave.

They can't sell the land now because no one is going to buy land that the government is about to take, and probably give away.
Click to expand...

This. Should have got out at the top of the market.
 
kookbreaker said:
Having seen the words of some folks actually in SA, it’s a bit more complex than wringing your hands and crying “but...but...Zimbabwe!!!”

To whit (and I expect I’ll be corrected when our own native SA members come to the thread).

1) A large amount of land is owned by very few, and they have resisted all forms of voluntary land reform
Click to expand...

The article makes it clear that the government has taken land before, but has always paid fair market value. Paying less than fair market value is an invitation to corruption.

2) Most of the land they are farming was seized in living memory. This isn’t some ‘our ancient tribal lands’ thing.
Click to expand...

So pay fair market value, but agree to escrow portions of the proceeds.
 
kookbreaker said:
Having seen the words of some folks actually in SA, it’s a bit more complex than wringing your hands and crying “but...but...Zimbabwe!!!”

To whit (and I expect I’ll be corrected when our own native SA members come to the thread).

1) A large amount of land is owned by very few, and they have resisted all forms of voluntary land reform

2) Most of the land they are farming was seized in living memory. This isn’t some ‘our ancient tribal lands’ thing.

3) The land reform is being considered via legislation with probable market value compensation. By comparison Zimbabwe was purely authoritarian cronyism and massively disorganized as well.

4) All that has happened is some public hearings. There’s a lot more steps that will need to happen before anything even starts. The President has stated that the rgame forms will not happen if they threaten food security or economic stability.

5) The constant comparisons to Zimbabwe is often just pure well poisoning.
Click to expand...

But it proved that the darkies can't farm so they don't deserve the land.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom