South Africa seizing white owned farms

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

It is universally understood now that the whites who gained their advantage by taking the best land from the natives were guilty of an injustice. There is not much of a presumption needed to see that.

And by and large those people are dead.

However the whites today who own a disproportionate amount of African land are still alive and the blacks who continue to be second-class citizens in their own country are still alive. It is a continuing injustice, not only an injustice of the past.

Then you should be happy that the evil is being undone.

Indeed I am. I just think it should be done justly. Injustice is not cured by injustice. Expropriation without compensation commensurate with the value added is unjust.

That statement is only true if the current “owners” of the land came by their “ownership” justly.

Expropriation without the land being returned to the descendants of the specific people it was taken from is unjust.

The Restitution of Land Rights Act of 1994 is set up to do exactly that.

 

[Inisfallen]

And by and large those people are dead.

True, of course.

But can there not be some remedy to a situation that was created by generations of dispossession and denial of rights? In other words, apartheid?

Must the answer be, “well, what’s done is done, let’s go with the status quo?”

 

[JonNC]

However the whites today who own a disproportionate amount of African land are still alive and the blacks who continue to be second-class citizens in their own country are still alive. It is a continuing injustice, not only an injustice of the past.

It has been a quarter of a century since the fall of Apartheid. The black majority has controlled the government since then. Right?

That statement is only true if the current “owners” of the land came by their “ownership” justly.

The land came to them from their families. You seem to want to accuse them for the crimes of their ancestors.

The Restitution of Land Rights Act of 1994 is set up to do exactly that.

Forgive me for not trusting the ANC.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

And by and large those people are dead.

True, of course.

But can there not be some remedy to a situation that was created by generations of dispossession and denial of rights? In other words, apartheid?

Must the answer be, “well, what’s done is done, let’s go with the status quo?”

I never said maintain the status quo. I said that compensation commensurate with the market value of the improvements is appropriate.

 

[Inisfallen]

I never said maintain the status quo

I didn’t say you did.

And I agree that compensation is appropriate, as well a necessary to, so to speak, keep the peace.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

I never said maintain the status quo

I didn’t say you did.

And I agree that compensation is appropriate, as well a necessary to, so to speak, keep the peace.

A moment of agreement, Inisfallen.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

However the whites today who own a disproportionate amount of African land are still alive and the blacks who continue to be second-class citizens in their own country are still alive. It is a continuing injustice, not only an injustice of the past.

It has been a quarter of a century since the fall of Apartheid. The black majority has controlled the government since then. Right?

It takes more than 25 years to undo three centuries of colonial rand white minority rule. And a good deal of the land has already been restored. I would not criticize them for moving too slowly. I commend them for it.

That statement is only true if the current “owners” of the land came by their “ownership” justly.

The land came to them from their families. You seem to want to accuse them for the crimes of their ancestors.

There is a difference between accusing the descendence of a crime and returning the land their fathers acquired unjustly. No punishment is being suggested, beyond the return of the land, and with some compensation too! That is hardly the way one would treat a criminal. The government is sympathetic to their position, but nevertheless determined to restore the land to the people it belonged to.

The Restitution of Land Rights Act of 1994 is set up to do exactly that.

Forgive me for not trusting the ANC.

That is up to the people of South Africa to decide.

 

[JonNC]

It takes more than 25 years to undo three centuries of colonial rand white minority rule. And a good deal of the land has already been restored. I would not criticize them for moving too slowly. I commend them for it.

Oh, I don’t know. Zimbabwe overcame it quite rapidly. The key to overcoming it is to do it right.
I’ve always had a sense that both Mandela and de Klerk understood that.

 

[JonNC]

There is a difference between accusing the descendence of a crime and returning the land their fathers acquired unjustly. No punishment is being suggested, beyond the return of the land, and with some compensation too! That is hardly the way one would treat a criminal. The government is sympathetic to their position, but nevertheless determined to restore the land to the people it belonged to.

I would say a 10% compensation is nearly punishment.

That is up to the people of South Africa to decide.

True, but just as Justice Ginsburg has her opinion, so do I.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

There is a difference between accusing the descendence of a crime and returning the land their fathers acquired unjustly. No punishment is being suggested, beyond the return of the land, and with some compensation too! That is hardly the way one would treat a criminal. The government is sympathetic to their position, but nevertheless determined to restore the land to the people it belonged to.

I would say a 10% compensation is nearly punishment.

Only if what they owned was justly owned. Even if someone who is innocent unknowingly buys stolen property, that property can be taken from him in justice without any compensation and it is not considered punishment.

 

[JonNC]

Only if what they owned was justly owned. Even if someone who is innocent unknowingly buys stolen property, that property can be taken from him in justice without any compensation and it is not considered punishment.

Then they should be allowed to take the improvements with them: House, outbuildings, and personal property such as implements and vehicles that they purchased.
It is the land that was taken decades ago

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Only if what they owned was justly owned. Even if someone who is innocent unknowingly buys stolen property, that property can be taken from him in justice without any compensation and it is not considered punishment.

Then they should be allowed to take the improvements with them: House, outbuildings, and personal property such as implements and vehicles that they purchased.
It is the land that was taken decades ago

That sounds reasonable. Is this not being done?

 

[niceatheist]

That’s going to be pretty impractical in most cases. To make someone who loses land through this process whole again can hardly involve moving their barns.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

LeafByNiggle:

Only if what they owned was justly owned. Even if someone who is innocent unknowingly buys stolen property, that property can be taken from him in justice without any compensation and it is not considered punishment.

Then they should be allowed to take the improvements with them: House, outbuildings, and personal property such as implements and vehicles that they purchased.
It is the land that was taken decades ago

That sounds reasonable. Is this not being done?

I don’t know.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

JonNC:

LeafByNiggle:

Only if what they owned was justly owned. Even if someone who is innocent unknowingly buys stolen property, that property can be taken from him in justice without any compensation and it is not considered punishment.

Then they should be allowed to take the improvements with them: House, outbuildings, and personal property such as implements and vehicles that they purchased.
It is the land that was taken decades ago

That sounds reasonable. Is this not being done?

I don’t know.

Well, in the spirit of the recent Rick Steves talk, let’s travel to S.A. and find out.

 

[JonNC]

That’s going to be pretty impractical in most cases. To make someone who loses land through this process whole again can hardly involve moving their barns.

Yeah, it is. So compensation commensurate with the market value of the improvements, etc

 

[JonNC]

Well, in the spirit of the recent Rick Steves talk, let’s travel to S.A. and find out.

A teacher’s pay makes it tough, but I would be game otherwise.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Most of S.A. is fragile land, in that rainfall is concentrated leaving long stretches of hot, dry weather. It’s not the kind of land that works well for small farming, and certainly not for inexperienced farmers.

And subsistence farming is not really the future of farming anyway; not here and not in AFrica either.

If they expropriate large farms in fragile country and widely distribute it, they’ll have some very happy people for awhile. Then they’ll face terrible production and re-concentration of land ownership in the hands of someone or other as small farmers sell out and move to the cities for work just as they’re doing now.

 

[MonteRCMS]

Owning the land isn’t enough.

You need the skills and education to produce crops and livestock.

The beauty of Texas A&M is the education they impart.

 

[exnihilo]

No it isn’t. There are plenty of recent historical examples where redistribution in the name of justice led to starvation and death. Once those conditions take hold you aren’t going to find much justice.