Libertarian's Forum
Libertarian Forum to discuss politics and free market economics.
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Should South Africa Take Back Their Land?
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7  Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Should South Africa Take Back Their Land? (Read 872 times)
SkyChief
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Online

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 8098
Location: California Coast
Joined: Aug 18th, 2014
Re: Should South Africa Take Back Their Land?
Reply #40 - Mar 1st, 2018 at 1:52pm
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Feb 28th, 2018 at 3:16pm:
I don't see what's wrong with confiscating white-owned land.

The article explains it's not even theirs. It was taken under apartheid and the government is dragging its feet in restoring it to its rightful owners.

Then Native Americans should be able to reclaim the US, right?    It was taken from them, too.

(Except Manhattan Island - they sold it for $24!!!   Grin   Grin   Grin)
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kaz
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Minarchist

Posts: 5533
Location: Kazmania
Joined: Jun 6th, 2017
Re: Should South Africa Take Back Their Land?
Reply #41 - Mar 1st, 2018 at 2:02pm
Print Post  
SkyChief wrote on Mar 1st, 2018 at 1:52pm:
Then Native Americans should be able to reclaim the US, right?    It was taken from them, too.

(Except Manhattan Island - they sold it for $24!!!   Grin   Grin   Grin)


Whites should also be able to claim land in the US from blacks and Mexicans since we were here first and it's simply race based.

Opposition's buying into the whites are always wrong theory
  

Greg Gutfeld - I became a conservative by being around liberals and I became a libertarian by being around conservatives

Matt Stone - I hate conservatives, but I really f'ing hate liberals
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Don_G
Ex Member


Re: Should South Africa Take Back Their Land?
Reply #42 - Mar 1st, 2018 at 2:04pm
Print Post  
kaz wrote on Mar 1st, 2018 at 2:02pm:
Whites should also be able to claim land in the US from blacks and Mexicans since we were here first and it's simply race based.

Opposition's buying into the whites are always wrong theory


How much for a shoeshine pig? Will you do one shoe for half price?

(troll video here)
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kaz
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Minarchist

Posts: 5533
Location: Kazmania
Joined: Jun 6th, 2017
Re: Should South Africa Take Back Their Land?
Reply #43 - Mar 1st, 2018 at 2:08pm
Print Post  
Quote:
How much for a shoeshine pig? Will you do one shoe for half price?

(troll video here)


Awarding yourself a troll video is meaningless.  You must earn them from the judges.  BTW, the judges awarded you a troll video.  OK, you called that one right.  Still ...

  

Greg Gutfeld - I became a conservative by being around liberals and I became a libertarian by being around conservatives

Matt Stone - I hate conservatives, but I really f'ing hate liberals
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 36183
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Should South Africa Take Back Their Land?
Reply #44 - Mar 1st, 2018 at 3:24pm
Print Post  
Snarky Sack wrote on Mar 1st, 2018 at 11:12am:
If a "low rider" stole your car, installed those shocks that let it bounce up and down, tinted the windows to make them almost opaque, put on a little chain steering wheel, installed spinner rims, painted it metal flake purple and many other improvements, when the police found your car and returned it to you, how much money would you owe the low rider?
Try some sort of analogy that is closer, or just answer my question.

European Kings with the blessing of the Pope claimed the entire New World, divvied it up and gave/sold it to Europeans. That's how I came to own the property I own. Prior to the Europeans, there were Indians living around here, but the land wasn't always controlled by the same tribe, and none of them claimed ownership in the sense we think of it. If some descendant of the tribe that originally controlled the land I own could produce credible evidence that they once owned my land, I will counter that their tribe's claim was lost by right of conquest. It's not a method I approve of, but I had nothing to do with it. Kings did that sort of thing, and if you reject all claims of ownership that are the result of conquest, nobody owns any land. The original United States was wrested from England in war and claimed by right of conquest. I suppose we should give America back to England?

For the sake of argument, pretend that some tribe convinced the court that they had a valid claim to my land. Why would that give them a right to my house?

The King of England stole their land and gave it to one of his buddies who sold it off in parcels. I bought it with a clear title. Let the tribe take it up with the King of England, but what was "stolen" from the tribe was unimproved land. I improved my land because I hold clear title to it, and I own both the land and the improvements.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 36183
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Should South Africa Take Back Their Land?
Reply #45 - Mar 1st, 2018 at 3:34pm
Print Post  
Snarky Sack wrote on Mar 1st, 2018 at 11:29am:
The passage of time alters ownership?  How long would the low rider have to keep  Jeff's stolen car for Jeff to no longer own it?


Well, as long as I have a valid title, I still own it.

It's unfortunate that governments claimed land by right of conquest, like the Chinese Communists did a lot less than 300 years ago, or the Cuban Communists even more recently, but governments do that sort of thing and it's not the equivalent of car theft.

Let's talk about forcing the Cuban Communists to return all the land they stole.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Snarky Sack
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 4380
Location: Republic of Me
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: Should South Africa Take Back Their Land?
Reply #46 - Mar 1st, 2018 at 3:47pm
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Mar 1st, 2018 at 3:34pm:
Well, as long as I have a valid title, I still own it.

It's unfortunate that governments claimed land by right of conquest, like the Chinese Communists did a lot less than 300 years ago, or the Cuban Communists even more recently, but governments do that sort of thing and it's not the equivalent of car theft.


It isn't the exact same, but nothing is ever the exact same as anything else.  That's why statists use the old "that's different" line in answer to any analogy.

But I think you missed the real point about improvements.  What the farmers see as improvements to the land taken from the tribal people might not be seen as improvements by them at all and the idea that they should pay for it would be as laughable as you being expected to reimburse the thief who "tricked out" your car.

Land is different from a car, as you correctly point out.  Without government, there is no land ownership so no one should cry foul if a new government means new owners. 


  

"I think I'll backtrack." - Jeff
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 8102
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: Should South Africa Take Back Their Land?
Reply #47 - Mar 1st, 2018 at 3:51pm
Print Post  
kaz wrote on Mar 1st, 2018 at 9:45am:
You moved the goal posts.

You claimed it was taken from black people under apartheid by the white people.  Now you moved the goal posts to be when it's being taken by the blacks.


Because the article is ambiguous. The article, not I, heavily implies there are restoration claims in on this land anyway.

Quote:
“The time for reconciliation is over. Now is the time for justice,” Malema told the parliament. “We must ensure that we restore the dignity of our people without compensating the criminals who stole our land.”

South Africa has a population of over 50 million people. According to a 2017 government audit, white people own 72 percent of farmland.

Last week, South Africa’s new president, Cyril Ramaphosa, pledged to return the lands owned by white farmers since the 1600s to the black citizens of the country. He added that food production and security must be preserved.

The official opposition Democratic Alliance party (DA) has criticized the motion, saying it will undermine property rights and scare off potential investors.

The DA’s Thandeka Mbabama told the parliament that expropriation without compensation was a way to divert attention from the failure by successive ANC-led (African National Congress) governments.

“It is shocking that at the current rate it will take 35 years to finalize (land) restitution claims lodged before 1998,” said Mbabama, who is deputy shadow minister for rural development and land reform.


What is the point of that last paragraph if they're not implying that? They would be quoting someone talking about something unrelated.

kaz wrote on Mar 1st, 2018 at 9:45am:
Either way, you switched your point from when the whites originally owned it to when the blacks are taking it without compensation


I asked you if it mattered. I honestly don't see why it should. A long time ago, I made a case that only the thief should suffer for a theft. If I buy a car fair and square, and it ends up being stolen, I should not have a car removed from me that I did not steal. Punish the thief, I said, not me, for I did not aggress. Get the money from him to buy back the car and then compensate me before you take it.

That case was refuted by libertarians, or I wouldn't be arguing it this way now. It's not my car. It doesn't become my property, or anyone else's property but the original owner's, ever. It makes sense that even if time elapses and my children end up with the car, it's still not theirs, and it should be restored to the children of the original owners, because the original owner still has title which he has the ability to will.

Here's my case against property restitution which was refuted.

The Opposition wrote on Jun 9th, 2015 at 6:07pm:
Only about 25% of my case is against the practical, that being only that it sucks to treat the thief with an, "oh well; he doesn't have it anymore" but follow through completely against the guy who bought it, who is now out all the money he spent, where the thief got to spend it and is allowed to benefit. In reality watches might hold some sentimental value, but they're more fungible than kidneys. Make the thief buy the guy a new watch. If he can't, harvest his organs. He'll find the money at that point.

About 75% of my case is toward the ideological.

1. I did not aggress. I did not steal. I should not be punished.

2. Because I did not aggress, taking from me is aggression.

3. (Here's the increased value bit.) I turned the watch into a time machine. Should I now be forced to give up or disassemble my time machine? If I increased its value, I have property in it, because my labour went into it. Now if I did steal the watch, this would be irrelevant, because forced used against me to get it back would be defensive. In absence of this, there's no case to use force to take my property from me just because part of it is yours too.

I argue that this applies equally to paying for it. I worked for the money. Money represents labour. I might as well have put labour into it. This would be obvious if it fell into the Grand Canyon and I went to fetch it; I invested labour to get it. If Bob left it for lost at this point, but wants it when I climb back up with it, I will tell him pay me for my labour or no deal. It's different if I knew he was going to get it himself; then I'd have stolen from him deliberately.


The Opposition wrote on Jun 5th, 2015 at 11:11pm:
Firstly, as to the recourse of the original owner, the thief committed aggression against him, and is the only one who did so. Logically he should have recourse against the thief and only the thief. Yes there ought to be recourse against the "blood from a stone" defence, but there isn't in the case that the thief smashed the watch, so why should there be in the case that he sold it?
  

This moral relativism of yours is exactly what lets government take this freedom, then that freedom, until we have lost them all.
-SnarkySack
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kaz
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Minarchist

Posts: 5533
Location: Kazmania
Joined: Jun 6th, 2017
Re: Should South Africa Take Back Their Land?
Reply #48 - Mar 1st, 2018 at 3:51pm
Print Post  
Snarky Sack wrote on Mar 1st, 2018 at 3:47pm:
What the farmers see as improvements to the land taken from the tribal people


Begging the question.  How do you know that?
  

Greg Gutfeld - I became a conservative by being around liberals and I became a libertarian by being around conservatives

Matt Stone - I hate conservatives, but I really f'ing hate liberals
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 36183
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Should South Africa Take Back Their Land?
Reply #49 - Mar 1st, 2018 at 4:00pm
Print Post  
Snarky Sack wrote on Mar 1st, 2018 at 3:47pm:
But I think you missed the real point about improvements.  What the farmers see as improvements to the land taken from the tribal people might not be seen as improvements by them at all and the idea that they should pay for it would be as laughable as you being expected to reimburse the thief who "tricked out" your car.


Ha ha. You can bet the Tribal Chief will grab the best farm and move right into the Big House. Then they will wait until the improvements to the land are wasted and it returns to a state of nature, if that's what they want.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 
Send TopicPrint
 
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Should South Africa Take Back Their Land?
Libertarian's Forum

Libertarian's Forum Information Rules, Agreement and Privacy Policy