Parliament approves motion on expropriation without compensation

konfab

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
29,448
Natives Land Act. of 1913....already did that.
Which proves precisely why the government has to protect property rights. The poor need them far more than the rich do.

What do you think the ANC is going to do with expropriation without compensation. Do you really think they will stop with farms? They will use the exact same law when they do their planning of infrastructure. So when the future ANC decides to build the Jacob Zuma memorial highway and find that there is an informal settlement in the way, they don't have to do anything to compensate all the people who will be displaced.

Some residents told a different story: The city started demolishing their houses around them, offering some of them money, some of them relocation and some both. City officials cajoled or intimidated residents, suggesting that they would get nothing if they didn’t grab what was offered. At one point, garbage collections stopped, da Silva said. The new bungalows were announced in March. Few families left happily..
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/the-favela-next-to-rios-new-olympic-park-that-fought-to-survive-and-lost/2016/08/01/fc8496ce-55c2-11e6-b652-315ae5d4d4dd_story.html
 

f2wohf

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 15, 2014
Messages
15,122
He is a lawyer, I'm sure he is used to screwing people. Please don't rbp me, just kidding. :)

Not for reproductive purposes, always for fun.

I wouldn't want a spawn lawyer (it's hereditary apparently), it would be more competition. :crylaugh:
 

garp

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2004
Messages
9,009
What do you think the ANC is going to do with expropriation without compensation. Do you really think they will stop with farms? They will use the exact same law when they do their planning of infrastructure. So when the future ANC decides to build the Jacob Zuma memorial highway and find that there is an informal settlement in the way, they don't have to do anything to compensate all the people who will be displaced.

Not officially ANC policy, but the EFF's manifesto actually makes it clear that they want to expropriate ALL land, no matter who owns it, and have the state grant land use rights (classic failed communism). I suspect many of their supporters do not realise this.
 

LazyLion

King of de Jungle
Joined
Mar 17, 2005
Messages
103,948
Natives Land Act. of 1913....already did that.

Whether or not that "destroyed the country" is debatable.
And whether or not the people who were displaced at that time actually "owned the land" is also debatable.
Sure it was a horrendous crime, no doubt. But two wrongs don't make a right.
I'm not convinced that displacement automatically equalled prior possession.
And anyway, transfer of ownership now to an uneducated and incapable people is not conducive to prosperity in this country.
We have enough evidence from the rest of the continent that his is a policy that leads to economic destruction.
 

daveza

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 5, 2004
Messages
44,233
Fine, just get the claimants to provide proof of purchase of the land.
 

Flanders

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 20, 2003
Messages
12,965
How can you correct past "brutal dispossession of land" (whether perceived or actual) by instigating a fresh brutal dispossession of the land? And how can there be any land dispossession without destabilising agriculture, food security and the economy? Rescinding property rights couldn't be more mutually exclusive with those things.

There has been an active process for legitimate land claims for two decades - surely if by now you haven't made your claim and proven your case there isn't one? Barring the details that government owns a huge amount of arable land and apparently even has 4000 undistributed farms, not to mention the tribal lands are vast nor the detail that nobody really has any accurate measure of who controls what land.

This all comes across to me as a desire for revenge from political populists rather than a true motivation for giving people land. It's not even what average people want. The SAIRR's regular surveys show that land is quite low on average people's priority lists - top of the list is jobs, healthcare, education, municipal services, etc. Land, for the sake of land, is way down the list.

Is this really what our young increasingly urban population wants? Land? What for? Does everyone want to go farm corn/cows in some rural area? Do people in modern affluent countries care about land, or even measure their wealth like this? Do New Yorkers, Amsterdamers, Londoners, Parisians give a fig about how many hectares they own in the country? The truth is that the only reason for this is to stick it to the so-called "colonialists/settlers" (many of whom have a heritage in this country longer than most Americans do in theirs) as part of their radical Marxist brainwashed hatred of the minority.

This, 100%.
 

garp

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2004
Messages
9,009
Natives Land Act. of 1913....already did that.

I'd say that the century long demographic disaster of unbridled 3500% population growth has played a far greater role in landing us where we are now.
 

Spliffcat

Executive Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2013
Messages
5,951
Alway fascinated me as to what will these people do if given land.
1. It will be worthless as very few to none can farm.
2. Once the property is destroye/looted, then what happens?
3. Because of land expropriation, all the properties become worthless.

Just been up in Zimbabwe, it's horrific what Bob did to his people. So much rain, what few maize plants that are there, look magnificent. (Subsistence planting). Everyone is still hungry.
How to really screw a country. Go look at Zim you bloody idiots who think land expropriation works.
 

yebocan

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
12,419
Whether or not that "destroyed the country" is debatable.
And whether or not the people who were displaced at that time actually "owned the land" is also debatable.
Sure it was a horrendous crime, no doubt. But two wrongs don't make a right.
I'm not convinced that displacement automatically equalled prior possession.
And anyway, transfer of ownership now to an uneducated and incapable people is not conducive to prosperity in this country.
We have enough evidence from the rest of the continent that his is a policy that leads to economic destruction.

Sure as hell made it paradise for some, hell for others - but hey the minority flourished and would have been an Australian like success story,.... only problem is the majority ultimately won...Act of 1913 is the most seminal event bar HF Verwoerd's little social experiment to screw this country's future over royally....the majority wants retribution for 1913 - even it it means burning the whole house down in the process. -two wrongs indeed does not make a right, but logic flies out of the window when passion is thrown into any debate.
 

Mephisto_Helix

Resident Postwhore
Joined
Jan 29, 2008
Messages
29,155
How can you correct past "brutal dispossession of land" (whether perceived or actual) by instigating a fresh brutal dispossession of the land? And how can there be any land dispossession without destabilising agriculture, food security and the economy? Rescinding property rights couldn't be more mutually exclusive with those things.

There has been an active process for legitimate land claims for two decades - surely if by now you haven't made your claim and proven your case there isn't one? Barring the details that government owns a huge amount of arable land and apparently even has 4000 undistributed farms, not to mention the tribal lands are vast nor the detail that nobody really has any accurate measure of who controls what land.

This all comes across to me as a desire for revenge from political populists rather than a true motivation for giving people land. It's not even what average people want. The SAIRR's regular surveys show that land is quite low on average people's priority lists - top of the list is jobs, healthcare, education, municipal services, etc. Land, for the sake of land, is way down the list.

Is this really what our young increasingly urban population wants? Land? What for? Does everyone want to go farm corn/cows in some rural area? Do people in modern affluent countries care about land, or even measure their wealth like this? Do New Yorkers, Amsterdamers, Londoners, Parisians give a fig about how many hectares they own in the country? The truth is that the only reason for this is to stick it to the so-called "colonialists/settlers" (many of whom have a heritage in this country longer than most Americans do in theirs) as part of their radical Marxist brainwashed hatred of the minority.

Perfectly said *thumbsup*
 

garp

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2004
Messages
9,009
Sure as hell made it paradise for some, hell for others - but hey the minority flourished

Based on numbers, you could say the majority also flourished. Now, I'm not saying they did so in any state of comfort or affluence, but if you take the cold numeric view, they outpaced minority population growth by nearly 3000%.
 

daveza

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 5, 2004
Messages
44,233
Has anyone mentioned what will happen when the land to be expropriated is bonded with the bank ?
 

Sumen

Expert Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2016
Messages
4,874
My suggestion, why don't they just serve them notice saying they are taking the land and then compensate them, how hard can that be, probably not as hard as "willing buyer, willing seller"
 

Pitbull

Verboten
Joined
Apr 8, 2006
Messages
63,368
Heard a very good argument about this last night.

As per the EFF and ANC definition or lad grabs taking place this was done by the Government of that time. The citizens bought the land from the Government. Thus the Government is the ones who need to accommodate these claims. Not the citizens who bought the land. This is the crux of the whole matter and will end up in court.

Which would then make Government responsible to return lost land, either by compensating the landless or giving them land, which they will have to pay for or allocate state land. Pretty interesting thinking about it that way.
 

yebocan

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
12,419
I'd say that the century long demographic disaster of unbridled 3500% population growth has played a far greater role in landing us where we are now.

Sweets lords, pre 1910 Union of South Africa, Cape Colony was well on its way to multi racialism...getting clumped together with the backward Afrikaners is what killed the original dream. John X. Merriman published accounts are readily available for consumption..as to how the dream of multi racialism was deferred and ultimately killed with the arrival of 1910.
 

Pitbull

Verboten
Joined
Apr 8, 2006
Messages
63,368
Has anyone mentioned what will happen when the land to be expropriated is bonded with the bank ?

Bank is the "owner" so it's their problem. We bonded our family farm with that in mind. Only losers here will then be the bank. I can't legally be held responsible for paying a bond to a property the Government has seized and allocated to someone else.
 

konfab

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
29,448
Has anyone mentioned what will happen when the land to be expropriated is bonded with the bank ?
You think people who don't give a toss about property rights care what happens to banks?
 

Garson007

Honorary Master
Joined
Jan 26, 2007
Messages
11,616
Just use the free market solution.

Make municipalities subdivide all the farms. You'll have hundreds of farms on the market before the ink dries.
 

konfab

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
29,448
Bank is the "owner" so it's their problem. We bonded our family farm with that in mind. Only losers here will then be the bank. I can't legally be held responsible for paying a bond to a property the Government has seized and allocated to someone else.

The courts are going to have a field day with this one.
 
Top