It's comical that some liberal American pundits will now pretend to care more about land reform in #SouthAfrica than black South Africans do, merely because @realDonaldTrump tweeted about it and therefore he must be a racist & wrong.
-
I’m not familiar with the history of land title claims in South Africa but if you believe in Natural Rights, any land possessed via aggression rather than a sale ought to be nullified. Rothbard discusses this in Ethics of Liberty. Do colonial invasion/rule count as aggression?
Statute of limitations. Laches. We are talking agressions that allegedly happened centuries ago. Time limits for recovery are a universal aspect of humane property law, otherwise practically all titles everywhere would be the subject of multiple disputes.
-
-
In the case of ZA, most land title is post-Boer-War; I think my titles in NJ and http://CA.US went back well farther. In ZA the bans on non-white land ownership extend much more recently than that, to now-living people, and all titles are legitimate to dispute.
-
A title dispute isn't legitimate unless there is a legitimate claim, i.e. a legal heir to an illegally displaced landowner. That is certainly not what is going on here in any way shape or form, and the confiscations are in no way, shape, or form legitimate.
-
A post-feudal non-nomadic plant-agriculture-and-buildings land title may not be a legitimate structure to impose on land used by nomadic herders; if it's imposed by a minority-race-only government only permitting members of the minority to own land, it can hardly claim that. 1/
-
Saying "My grandpa helped the king steal this land from your tribe" doesn't give white farmers a moral position to claim that black farmers or the new government can't do the same to them, even if it does give them legitimacy in disputes with other Anglo or Boer tribe-members. 2/
-
Property law (both common law and Roman), including principles like statute of limitations & laches, gives them that legitimacy. You are now just repeating, presumably inadvertently, socialist talking points that ignore or severely denigrate property rights and property law.
-
As are you :-), since from an African perspective, the British and Boer claims to property law are just as socialist, denigrating previous property rights and legal customs. Imposing a statute of limitations as "from back when we conquered this place" doesn't survive revolutions.
-
So you can recite to me the relevant Zulu property laws and name the current specific person(s) who are legal heirs to the land under their law? If not, with all due respect, I love you man but shut the fuck up about topics you know so little about.
-
p.s. nobody knows these things, the evidence is gone, which is why we have laches and statute of limitations and similar. Those principles are not some great white man conspiratorial racist plot.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Fair points. In that case, I’d argue that the statue of limitations should start when those who have been dispossessed of property can make a practical claim to have their property reassigned. Eg you’re part of a class who’s rights claims are not recognized by the legal process
-
The specific descendants of those allegedly dispossessed are not the ones who would succeed in title to a given property. They are almost never even of the same clan, only of the same race. In short there is nothing in humane property law that allows this, it's a racist pogrom.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.