Well you asked for it,my view on Expropriation without compensation.

Well my view on this topic is two-fold:



I have what I believe should happen in 'THEORY' based on principles of fairness and justice. But I also have a view of what can actually happen 'PRACTICALLY'.



I do think that Land reform HAS to happen, not just from a justice point of view but from a survival point of view, the poor disenfranchised masses are getting angrier and angrier by the second (justifiably I think). And once the rage spills over it will spill over to all of the people who are refusing to share wealth more fairly. (not even wealth really but just a share of the economy that allows people a modicum of dignity). This rage will be violent and indiscriminate, it will ravage through the middle class of both white and blacks. All people with wealth and oppurtunity will be targeted.



Theory:

Theoretically I believe that expropriation without compensation will depend on how black land and assets were taken away in the first place. ( I will admit here that I have not done enough research on this aspect and thus I am still forming my opinion on this nuanced topic)

However what I do know as fact is that black peoples land was taken from them without any sort of compensation.

What I don't know though is how it was redistibuted to whites after it was taken, and this is widely disputed in many circles.

In law and justive, if person B steals a car from person A and goes on to sell this car to person C. That car still belongs to person A, regardless of whether person C put shiny new rims on it and a new sound system,that car belongs to person A.

When person A recovers their car, they cannot be expected to compensate person C for the 'improvements' they have added to the car. Person C does however have recourse against person B who sold them the car. Similarly the black dispossed should not, if they have a valid claim, be expected to pay for the land that was stolen, NOR for the difference in market value either due to improvements made or passing of time. The Person B in this example is the government, they forcably dispossed people so they need to account for their actions (Side note: the fact that the people running gov have changed is irrelevant).



If the property (land in this argument) was stolen by government and distributed to people where they still had to pay market value then the state has an obligation to expropriate WITH compensation, then I believe that it would be wrong to punish the original buyer (and/or his heirs or subsequent purchasers) as they went in good faith.



If the land was stolen and distributed for free to the new inhabitants then I believe that the new inhabitant obtained an asset for no value and thus cannot expect to be compensated as they can be seen as being part of that theft or at the very least are a beneficiary, then I believe expropriation WITHOUT compensation is correct. However there must be some recourse for people who have subsequently purchased the properties from those people to claim damages from those people.

Practically:

What I do realise however is that practically, whichever way the disposession occurred, it will be impossible to implement expropriation without compensation in any meaningful way without affecting the economy or food security for many reasons:

- The main reason is that SA does not live in a vacuum. Unforetunaley (as we've seen recently with Australia when comparing white 'refugees' and black refugees) whenever white people are 'persecuted' those in a position of power will never allow that to happen without repercussions. (and that's NOT a white thing, ALL people will tend to stand up for people who look like them and/or share the same traits as them, its just that white people wield economic and political power around the world so they have a lot more bark when they "stand up for their own". What happened in Zim has happened in many white countries over coloured people, or coloured people over other coloured people but the response in Zim was far more decisive for a very specific reason) We've seen how the well resourced Afriform etc were able to peddle lies and half-truths to the world.

- And the RSA Gov (mostly ANC but even the DA, with the water crises etc) have demonstrated that they have failed to implement simple programs, theres no way they'll be able to implement this kind of reform without widescale looting taking place. Its unfortunate but it's a fact.

- Finally, with so many transfers of property having happened, it would be a practical nightmare to find the original owners and their heirs etc in order to properly correct the injustice.



So having looked at all of that, I'd say we'd probably have to scrap the current ANC model. The EFF model of gov owning land is ridiculous in an RSA context with the inefficiencies and corruption, so I'd say we need to give those who want to farm the opportunity to farm with government support (similarly to what the DA is doing and the ANC has been attempting). But also the gov should offer cash settlement options to valid claims and also provide proper and adequate urban housing to its people because most people want to live in the urban areas, they will need jobs of course but that's an argument for another day.



So JJsoap, that's how I see it.

It's funny how Indians in South Africa are selling land in India that their forefathers owned before coming to South Africa, some of whom never even been to India. Yet, somehow they are able to prove their claim and ownership. But like you say, it will be a practical nightmare to trace and prove original ownership here in our case.

Deleted.

@changetaker

Based on your own views you now have admitted to be a racist, as you support "to prejudice someone based purely on race"

in your own words you said:

"3. Then somebody said 'are black girls who don't see black clients racist': That is a big and emphatic YES. Racial discrimination is a dictionary definition which (ironically) doesn't see race. So black wgs who don't see black guys= racist. Black wgs who don't see white guys = racist. White wgs who don't see white guys= racist. As long as you prejudice someone based purely on race that is what you are because you only judge based on your perception of someone who has that skin color. ."

In this whole land debate, it is only black people that will benefit, nowhere does it mention anything about any other race to benefit.

In supporting it you are a racist. So please stop blaming the ladies as you are one yourself.

Thank you.

On 2018-04-20 16:38:20 chancetaker said:
I do think that Land reform HAS to happen, not just from a justice point of view but from a survival point of view, the poor disenfranchised masses are getting angrier and angrier by the second (justifiably I think). And once the rage spills over it will spill over to all of the people who are refusing to share wealth more fairly. (not even wealth really but just a share of the economy that allows people a modicum of dignity). This rage will be violent and indiscriminate, it will ravage through the middle class of both white and blacks. All people with wealth and oppurtunity will be targeted

I say this all the time. Entirely spot on.

@JJsoap that was mean and uncalled for.
Very sneaky and underhanded.
You should be ashamed of yourself man.

You asked his view in order to trip him up and make him out to be a racist.

He gave a view that was once again well reasoned and did not really call to be drawn into a racial debate and to be personally attacked once again.

Now go and hide in a hole because when the EFF come into power you better be in Australia as you don't deserve Vaseline bru.

Ive got popcorn in the microwave, almost ready........

A possible scenario...

A foreigner wants to invest in RSA.

In a labour intensive business that will create 100s or 1000s of jobs.
And create jobs in the entities that will supply them their goods, materials and services.

The investor wants to own their investment.
All of it, the land, buildings, plant, machinery, vehicles, electronic equipment.....all of it.

They investigate.

Ohhhhhh......expropriation without compensation.....Labour laws and trade unions that protect (mommycoddle) the workers at the expense of ensuring pride in your employer, satisfaction in their job as well as the economic viabilty of the business.

Decision.....Let us rather invest in one of the former soviet block countries.

Opportunity lost.