Land Expropriation

[Mark Heaton]

Please can I ask this group for some opinions.

 

How does a libertarian in SA rationalise Ramaphosa’s commitment to expropriate land without compensation in order to boost agricultural production?

 

The following issues concern me:

 

-        Mostly history has taught us that land taken away (even with compensation) and given to inexperienced people to farm turns out to be a productive disaster.

-        Compensation basically means taking extorted taxpayer’s money and giving it back to a smaller group of taxpayers in exchange for their land. There remains no voluntarism in the transaction.

-        That there are legitimate historical claims to land that was taken away from people that previously had either direct or customary title to land which have not been properly addressed.

-        Supposing I now own a game farm in Hoedspruit (which I paid for and have legal title) but that land was seized back in 1922 from people who lived on it? If I am the owner of stolen property, do I have a right to be compensated if it is handed back to people who historically have more right to it than I do? Other than by me claiming from the person I bought it from for selling me stolen goods. But that person may no longer be alive.

 

Leon, if you are reading this, what is the FMF position on the land issue?

 

Thanks

Mark

 

Mark Heaton

PO Box 3219, Dainfern 2055

mark....@imaginet.co.za

+27 82 600 0150

 

[Barry de Harde]

My understanding is that I is the removal of all property rights, this is not restricted to land.

according to my attorney, the confiscation of guns from legal gun owners was only block through the provision on property rights in the constitution.

This is not only about land.

 

Regards

Barry

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LibertarianSA" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to li...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/libsa.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Andre]

It is about culture. Culture represents values. Some cultures command a respect for property rights. Some cultures do not. Cultures and its implied values, are taught.

People in Africa do not perpetuate or promote the value of property rights. This is the curse of Africa culture. As long as it shuns property rights it will remain poor. As long as the ANC perpetuate the policy of property redistribution without compensation, they undermine the value of property rights and consequently the country will not escape holding out the begging bowl.

Ramaphosa could have broken this cycle of poverty by promoting a culture that show respect for property rights, but he did not.

He is evidently not a leader that could break the curse of poverty. Rather, he is a victim of the very culture that commands his truth, the truth of his comrades and the truth of the people of Africa. A culture they can evidently not escape. A culture that shuns respect for property, a culture that perpetuate and promotes poverty I fear. 

Regrettably it is politically incorrect to debate or criticise culture. Until the flaws in culture is debated, there will be no hope or reason to celebrate I am afraid.

[Gavin Weiman]

Hi

To respond we have to understand the ‘meaning’ of the communication.

The idea to "expropriate land without compensation” for some <named purpose> is a political slogan. We can either look at the literal meaning of the words or treat them as hyperbol for: “We want to help the previously dispossessed as much as possible even to the extent, were it possible,  to 'expropriate land without compensation’”. Or a combination. 

Obviously a response to the literal can indicate a view on the intent of the hyperbole. Rhetorically the response on the literal must be done in such as way as to not be open to the accusation that one does not care for the the injustices of the past.

A response to the literal statement can be done in many ways - as there are very many critiques.

But lets deal with the ‘naive’ libertarian response because it 'seems' a poor one. Namely that the injustices of the past were the result of statist interventions in the market and the cure is to remove the state from the land market and restore a free market in land. 

Unless all land is nationalised and bureaucratically allocated (each according to he’s need), in the absence of a ‘time’ cop one cannot undo the past. The best that can be done in the real world is some sort of ‘damages’ to he victims which it is outside of common law systems to provide since the harm was caused systemically by a sovereign entity and its land laws in the past. 

So only another sovereign entity with other laws can ‘approximate’ damages and justice. But this will be done with violence to other interests. To believe anything else is to believe that ‘two wrongs make a right.’

What can be done is to create the ‘impression’ of justice. One or more “ expropriations", as symbolic justice, then back to an "open-ish” market in land. Politically this may be the pragmatic solution adopted (even if the EFF or BLF came to power). 

Even if the policy was adopted "expropriate land without compensation” it could not be taken literally. It would be absurd for example to expropriate the land within the Johannesburg city limits and turn this land to agricultural or any other <named purpose>.

So it must mean expropriating some land "to the exclusion of other land” - this comes up against the constitutions equality clause etc,

I can’t recall if it was Hayek or Von Mises who states that a system of laws (property and conrtact) don’t have to be perfect for markets to work, but they do need to be known and predicable or certain.

Obviously slogans like "expropriate land without compensation” introduce uncertainty and this impacts on entrepreneurial risk. Entrepreneurs who can predict which land will be subject to expropriation and provide services to this process can benefit. Entrepreneurs who take state insanities to market are not crony entrepreneurs they provide valuable market 'damage' control to statist torts.

In conclusion, with mess in between - the quantum depending on how much illusion of justice is politically needed - , the ‘naive’ libertarian solution will "happen-ish” as total nationalisation of all property (even just immovable property or unimproved immovable property) is ultimately more harmful than ‘unfixable’ past harms.

 

Gavin Weiman

gavin....@icloud.com

http://www.weiman.co.za
Cel: 082 510 0186

[Gavin Weiman]

Hi

Parting shot.

The recently approved Expropriation Bill does not provide for "expropriate without compensation” and must be read with ~25 of the Constitution which forbids "expropriate without compensation"

To do so would require a constitutional amendment which requires a 2/3s majority

The slogan is simply empty political rhetoric. It creates expectations that the state can’t fulfil unless it gets them enough votes to alter the constitution - which is the aspiration behind it.

Gavin Weiman

gavin....@icloud.com

http://www.weiman.co.za
Cel: 082 510 0186

[Trevor Watkins]

I agree that expropriation without compensation is merely a political slogan, unlikely to be realised in practice in anything short of a nazi state. If it keeps the lunatic fringe in the NEC quiet for awhile, perhaps it is worth invoking? However, phrases have their own power to sway the system, like "one man one vote" did in Africa, and "one boer one bullet" does today. EwC may become the WMC of Ramaphosa's reign.

Title to property is one of the many grey areas in the libertarian lexicon. It would be foolish to pretend otherwise. 

How do you establish title? As a libertarian you do not want to rely on state services for that. Possession is a good measure, but hardly conclusive. History of usage is also a good measure, but still arbitrary (how many years, what sort of usage?) My recommended libertarian solution is to rely on a jury of peers to arbitrate disputes between competing complainants, with a maximum of 2 appeals, as proposed in this Consent Axiom article. 

However, there are many solutions to the South African land issue which would be acceptable to most. The state owns the majority of SA land. It can redistribute that  at its discretion. Many state functions and SOE's could be privatised and the proceeds used to fund land acquisition for the black poor. The vast majority of land claimants want money, not land. Improve the SA growth rate to 5%pa and this whole issue will evaporate.

Trevor Watkins 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LibertarianSA" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Andre]

If the "expropriate without compensation" line is empty political rhetoric, one wonders how "empty" such rhetoric really is. I am sure the victims of all the farm murders we read about would not consider such statements as remarks without consequence. Nor do I think the impact of such words will have no consequence on our food security. My point is we are feeding and promoting bad values, particularly the idea that taking property without compensation is justified. 

Andre G Heyns BA SecBA (SA) LLB LLM (Jhb)

Advocate of the High Court of South Africa

Tel:  +27 (0)11 083 9963

Fax: +27 (0) 86 523 5252

Skype: andreatknysna

email: andre...@gmail.com

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to li...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/libsa.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LibertarianSA" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to li...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/libsa.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LibertarianSA" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to li...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/libsa.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LibertarianSA" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Gavin Weiman]

Hi Andre,

I agree with you. 

I did not mean by ‘empty rhetoric’ that it was devoid of consequences (see my post before the one you are commenting on). Its clearly a political slogan playing to voters who aspire to acquire land more easily 'if only the state wasn’t encumbered by a duty to pay reasonable value for land earmarked for redistribution.”

It might in fact play to the “worst kind of voter’ some like your farm murderer. Although I doubt those types are pinning their hopes on a constitutional amended or are campaigning for a political party to do so. The link between the ’slogan’ and farm murders may be real or tenuous - I don’t know.

But I 100% agree with you that the slogan does "feeding and promoting bad values, particularly the idea that taking property without compensation is justified.” - BUT the values are implicit not explicit. Some (not me) might argue that the slogan promotes “social justice.”

Imagine libertarians were promoting a constitutional amendment to exclude sect 25 and to make property rights ‘absolute’ i.e. no possibility of expropriation even with compensation. The other side might accuse us of encouraging values of greed and a callous disregard of justice for past wrongs.

Whether a slogan ‘encourages’ implicit underlying values and whether people actually adopt these values is surely up to the individuals concerned and not the sloganeer - who after all does have the right through speech to promote his values.

So really its up to us to engage with slogans and values in a social debate - and hope we can win the reasonably minder to libertarian/liberal property rights etc.

Remember that those attracted to the slogan are not thinking that their property, now or in the future, may be at risk. They are attracted to their gain, maybe vengeance, but they see themselves on the side that may benefit not be harmed.

Regards

Gavin Weiman

gavin....@icloud.com

http://www.weiman.co.za
Cel: 082 510 0186

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.

[Stephen van Jaarsveldt]

Well, I need to disagree with this... I mean, in principle you're correct Gavin, there is clause 25 which provides for property rights, but that does not really protect property very well. Recently I have seen amendments to the municipal zoning bylaws which basically tell people what they may do on or with their property, their land in particular. We all know that you cannot erect a factory on your residential property or run a commercial business from your farm... at least, they're not enforcing the zoning laws as stringently as in the past, but they're still there on the books. And of late these have been used to tell people how or how not to use their property, which bring up the question whether it can still be considered property if you can only use, enjoy and dispose of it with permission from the State. There was a proposal last year which I believe became law but which I cannot locate just now, which basically said that farmers cannot sell their land without government approval of the transaction i.e. some bureaucrat can decide to block the sale if you're not selling to a person with a particular shade of skin colour and they can tell you what to do on that land to the point where they can tell you to let someone else occupy and live or work on the land... it is still "yours", but they just tell you how to employ it. Much like they're doing with your car and speed limits. That is a clever way to get what they want without technically contravening clause 25. So they have been eroding and bypassing clause 25 to effectively take the use and enjoyment of the property... no need to take the actual property itself... even though those two things are basically the same thing.

S.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to li...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/libsa.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LibertarianSA" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to li...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/libsa.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LibertarianSA" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to li...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/libsa.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LibertarianSA" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Stephen van Jaarsveldt]

I don't get how certain people can be held accountable for the sins of other people, but I seem to be in a very small minority on this. To me it boggles the mind that Bill Gates and Elon Musk and Warren Buffet can be held accountable and forced to pay for the poverty of Joe Soap. I don't get how you can take a farm away from me because my grandfather stole it from Joe Soap and give it back to Joe's grandson. Neither of us were there or involved in the crime - why should either of us be punished or compensated. Recovery of stolen goods is one thing, but we're no longer talking about specific individuals in particular cases of wrongdoing here, we're talking vaguely described groups of people making general claims against other vaguely described groups of people... and the result is that innocent people are being plundered to compensate others who suffered only indirectly. That "justice" is dragging everyone down, which is nuts.

S.

[Andre]

My interest in the topic goes slightly wider or hopefully deeper than the political opportunity that the slogan creates.

It raises the question whether property rights or the value; "Thou shalt not steal" is purely a Eurocentric value arising from predominantly western, or Christian cultures, if there is such a thing. Can we credibly argue that tribes in Africa (or the cultures of Africa) ascribe greater value to the idea that property should be shared in a collective sense (ubuntu), and that this value carries more weight in African culture than the idea that you should respect your neighbour's property.

If such a clash of values exist, as manifest in differences in culture, then the idea of a multicultural society makes no sense and is wholly impractical or unworkable. You cannot organise different cultures under a constitutional umbrella if the culture of one group commands the sharing of property (ubuntu) whilst the culture of another group obsesses about theft and trespassing. The idea that one should respect culture may be politically correct, but it is evidently not a practical ideal if you intend to command or organise a society. All that will happen is agents of power will allow the values of certain cultures, to dominate. These values, imbedded in cultural diversity, are in perpetual conflict and cannot exist together.

Curiously the South African constitution has a bias in favour of the value of property rights, born out of our Eurocentric Roman Law traditions, but this bias is evidently being chipped away by judges who proudly hold on to their African heritage. I guess one can argue, that this is also the mistake of the EU. You cannot claim cultural diversity and then resolve to manage people of diverse cultures centrally through the European Court of Justice, unless you limit their powers to very broad common interests as the US have done to some extent.

I have a simple question for you all: Can there ever be hope for a country like South Africa, dominated by cultures, nurtured by agents of power, that values the idea that property, whether money or land, should be shared. Is this not the ultimate curse of Africa, its cultures?

Regrettably, it is not politically correct to question or debate the good or bad of culture. But this may be the mistake of our time, I fear. 

Andre

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to li...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/libsa.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Gavin Weiman]

Hi S

I agree with you. Its clear that zoning laws et al can ‘whittle away’ at the entitlements that formed the common law content of ownership. So we would need to check with the Constitutional Court whether they consider such ‘whittlings away’ to be ‘disguised’ expropriation or at least whether there is some line (since some zoning is done by other open societies) that becomes excessive and is therefore unconstitutional ‘expropriation’.

I think we need a test case on this, Unless its already been asked and answered - I have not checked this area of law for a while.

Gavin Weiman

gavin....@icloud.com

http://www.weiman.co.za
Cel: 082 510 0186

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.

[Gavin Weiman]

Hi

I agree with you on the principle that two wrongs cannot make a right. But then there is politics which seems to encompass all sorts of magical ideas. Many of these political ideas nearly “test the waters” so the thugs can get an idea of what they can get away with or at least get votes for.

So we need to keep ‘being-outraged’ as loudly and as publicly as we can. 

But they take more notice of the outrage of more visible groups like business or labour.

Gavin Weiman

gavin....@icloud.com

http://www.weiman.co.za
Cel: 082 510 0186

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.

[Gavin Weiman]

Hi A

I don’t think your question is new or unusual. It is one that is difficult to answer and even more difficult to get any consensus on.

Within western culture itself we have property (selfishness) v socialism (altruism/theft) in a pendulum. At which slice in history does one decide ‘that is the culture’?

Western culture is something my education gives me some feel for. I have less of a feel for other cultures.

However, Robert Ardrey’s  - The Territorial Imperative, seems to suggest a universality, within the animal kingdom, of territorial behaviour. The extent to which this behaviour has been made explicit in the laws of western culture (roman law and common law)  and other cultures is a matter of research. This may indicate the strength or vigour of the issues you raise on a cultural level. Remembering that these impulse tend to ebb or surge over time in all cultures.

So wether african ubuntu and western collectivism are on par,  or respect for the individual and his property is equally strongly in different cultures is not easy to determine.

We have opinions, but usually or at least often they are shown by history to have been wrong.

Regards

Gavin Weiman

gavin....@icloud.com

http://www.weiman.co.za
Cel: 082 510 0186

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.

[Gavin Weiman]

Hi

Seems there are not to many cased or discussions directly on this (if there is a line to be crossed with regulation of property  rights where it becomes unconstitutional as amounting to expropriation without compensation) yet.

Minister of Minerals and Energy v Agri South Africa (458/2011) [2012] ZASCA 93; 2012 (5) SA 1 (SCA); [2012] 3 All SA 266 (SCA); 2012 (9) BCLR 958 (SCA) (31 May 2012), dealt with mineral rights and discussed in a law journal :When does State Interference with Property (Now) Amount to Expropriation? An Analysis of the Agri SA Court's State Acquisition Requirement (Part I) [2015] PER 3

In think there are some cases on movable property (forfeitures etc) and on intellectual property rights, rent control etc

Fedsure Life Assurance Ltd and Others v Greater Johannesburg Transitional Metropolitan Council and Others (CCT7/98) [1998] ZACC 17; 1999 (1) SA 374; 1998 (12) BCLR 1458 (14 October 1998), dealt with discriminatory rates 

Perhaps a libertarian lawyers who’s been following this more closely can give us the benefit of more specialised knowledge

Gavin Weiman

gavin....@icloud.com

http://www.weiman.co.za
Cel: 082 510 0186

[Stephen van Jaarsveldt]

Andre, I have to disagree with you on this one. A lot of people seem to hold views the same or similar to yours, so I think it is normal and possibly natural... however, I find it almost offensive in the extent to which you need to view people in a collectivist kind of way in order to maintain this point of view. Just because many people hold this kind of view, does not make it correct and I think it is very wrong in a number of ways... but I understand what you're saying and why, so I'd like to make a counter-argument as neutrally as I possibly can.

First of all, culture is not nearly as neat and clear-cut as you would have us believe - there is no "property is good" vs. "property is bad" culture (though I will address that further below). Culture is a lot more vague and flimsy - there is no such thing as "African culture" or "Eurocentric culture". Please see the definition of culture; https://www.google.ca/search?q=define+culture&oq=define+culture&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.4105j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 as well as my presentation on this at the LibSem the year before last; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AnhUh9IVXk ... in short, you're assigning attributes to "culture", one of which is "African"... but geography is not properly an attribute of culture. There is no such thing as "African" or "European" culture - those cannot exist, by the definition of the word "culture", since geography is not a human thought process or activity.

Secondly, if one were to classify cultures according to their respect for / valuation of property (which is a human thought system and thus could be an attribute of culture, unlike geography), I would rate (rather subjectively) a few randomly selected ones as follows;

- The Tshwana people seem to have pretty strong pro-property values, as evidenced by the work of Festus Mogae in Botswana and Lukas Mangope in Boputhatswana, amongst other things.

- The Xhosa and Zulu people seem to be relatively more collectivist, as evidenced by cattle raids in the 1800's, minings strikes, various historical anecdotes and stories or "respected warriors" (thus implied respect for looting) in these groups.

- The Herere and the Shona seem to be rather pro-property, as are many of the Swahili peoples (mobile money having flourished particularly in Kenya)... clearly the Nigerians (or many of them) understand how to swindle property from others via the Internet.

- The Egyptians (part of Africa) have historically been very clear about the property of particularly their ruling classes and the Moroccans are master negotiators, something only possible with clear understandings of property rights.

- The Dutch gave us double-entry accounting, limited liability companies, stocks & bonds, free trade and of course tulips... there are possibly no people on this planet more in tune with property as a concept than the Dutch.

- All around the Dutch, we find people absolutely devoid of respect for property, like the Spanish who ravaged, looted and pillaged the Americas, the Portuguese who plundered, invaded and claimed for their rulers a fat wad of the globe, the French and Belgians who were notoriously savage colonialists...

- The British... possibly the least respectful of the property of others that this planet has ever seen... I don't even know where to start with their disrespect for property rights.. India... China... the sun never sets on their disregard for other's property.

- The Inuit are very collectivist... but that is to be expected when you spend a lot of time hunting large animals which can feed a whole village for a long time... similar to the Bushmen / San / Khoi, who often hunted down an animal to be consumed by all over the course of weeks.

- The Cherokee, Crowfoot, Apache, Sioux, Navajo, etc. all seem to have been relatively pro-property to a more or lesser extent... the Inca, Quechua, Mapuche, etc. of Southern Americas seem to have been more pro-property, but since little remains of their cultures, it is hard to say.

- The Mongoleans had some very clear ideas about property rights, which seems to have rubbed off on the Chinese... who have quite a lot of respect for property, while holding absolutely zero respect for intellectual property and freely copy ideas, designs and works of art without batting an eye-lid.

- It seems to me that accountants (which is also a kind of culture, under the definition of culture above) have a much stronger sense of property than do most artists... so I would expect a Zulu or Spanish accountant to respect property more than a Tshwana or Dutch artist.

- Lawyers generally seem to have a strong sense of property and liberal arts students very little, so I expect Inuit lawyers to have a much better sense of property than Dutch womans' studies graduates i.e. lawyer culture could trump Inuit culture.

- People seem to generally respect property more, the more they have been educated... so I expect people with degrees in Maths to have have a stronger sense or property than a youngster who left school from 10th grade.

From this, I conclude that you cannot say that any "African culture" exists or that, even if it did, that it would be pro- or anti- property. It is similarly impossible to say if "European culture", assuming such a things even exists, would be pro- or anti-property. In fact, it seems to me that the most consistently against property rights are the British, Spanish, French and German "cultures"... again, assuming that there is such a thing as "British culture", which I don't believe one can say...

But even in all of this, it should be abundantly clear that no single human being can possibly fall in any of these categories. All of the examples above are using a very wide brush and painting with matt ignorance. It is theoretically possible, for example, to have a British liberal arts graduate who is in favour of property rights... though probably unlikely. One would have to look at the individual to determine what each believes and what not, with regards to property... assuming those beliefs by group, based on attributes of the group, makes collectivist assumptions about the individuals in those groups.

Thirdly, if you cannot pin down a set of human activities, draw a border around it or properly classify it as being pro- or anti-property, then your assumptions below all fall apart. In order to maintain the view of "African culture" being "anti-property" or "collectivist", you must assume that culture is fixed & tangible (which it is not) so that you can ascribe attributes like "pro-property" to it, that you can draw a line around it (which you can't) so that you can call it "African" or "European, and that you can measure their level of "pro-property-ness" (which you obviously can't, definitely not for the group, covering all individuals in the group). These assumptions are also the same assumptions one has to make in order to discriminate against a set of peoples in order to establish systems like Apartheid... it is inherently racist and collectivist.

Finally, culture is learned - it is not geographic or genetic or inherited (though it is transferred) or fixed. That means it can be changed... which is why I support the Free Market Foundation. That said, there is a very strong support for collectivism in Africa and in South Africa in particular, across most cultures, even amongst lawyer cultures and accountant cultures... which is very likely to persist well beyond my lifetime, which is why I recently moved my family to Western Canada.

Incidentally, we moved here, not because there are any particular individuals that I know of over here who have a strong sense of property rights, but because this area is known for it's cultural heritage including a general respect for property rights... so even though I argue above that one cannot classify people into groupings and assign attributes to them, my own actions seem to contradict my words. Possibly they do... but culture does exist, some cultures do respect property more and we can use that as a guide to action... I would just not go nearly as wide as "Africa" or as deep as "property" as a "fixed" attribute of that "culture" - that is racist and collectivist. I understand that Western Canada could be persuaded to become communist, as have other places... but I find the odds of it happening rather lower here than most other places, because it is made up of individuals who believe, some even against or despite their own cultural backgrounds, that property is something to be respected.

This is a complex topic... I hope I got to the heart of it in all of this.

S.

[Andre]

Hi Stephan

Your welcome criticism mischaracterizes some of my thoughts, which I guess has something to do with the imperfection of language. 

Let me highlight the mischaracterizations:

1. I deliberately used the plural when I referred to African cultures because there will be vast differences between African cultures. I do not suggest in my remarks that cultures are neat and clear-cut, but I do suggest some values (ideas) becomes dominant in certain cultures and are taught and shared widely amongst groups: in this case the idea that "property should be shared" as a greater value compared to the idea that "you may not violate an individual's property". This is the problem.  Keep in mind no politician in the United States or the Netherlands for that matter will ever be foolish enough to say anything like Ramaposa's announcement: "that property should be expropriated without compensation".  Such a remark will not be tolerated.
   
   
2. You provide an excellent analysis of how groups differ in attitudes towards property, and it is encouraging that there are groups in Africa with strong feelings about property rights. But the question remains who are the dominant groups and to what extent do they perpetuate bad values, values that become dominant values and how will this shape South Africa's economic history. 
   
   
3. It is instructive that you mention that Zulus and Xosas are relatively more collectivist. Well, how dominant will their cultures be in this country? Should we dare to look at their cultures critically or pander to political correctness and turn a blind eye, as the media is currently doing, to the Ramaphosa remark: Expropriation without compensation. Is it smart to talk about respect for people's cultures or has the time come to cast a more critical eye?
   
   
4. This raises the question why is the Ramaphosa statement so easily accepted in Africa. The theory I am postulating is that certain cultures do not teach adequately the value that the individual's property may not be violated, in the same way, that cultures teach such a value in communities in places like the US or western Europe for example. There seems to be a direct correlation between values and poverty. 
   
   
5. I agree with you, one cannot generalize, but nor should we be tempted to avoid the topic just because it creates a sense of disgust that somebody can dare to criticise people merely due to their cultural connection with a tribe or culture. Knowledge cannot progress if we are not prepared to postulate probabilities which ultimately must of course pass the test of empirical data. 
   
   
6. I have spent all my life in Africa, confronted with African cultures on a daily basis and the nature of my work confronted me with people who on a daily basis violated other persons property. I cannot ignore my own experience that people in Africa in broad general terms experience less disgust about the violation of an individuals property than in a place like Europe, where I currently live. In Africa, I better put a wall around my house to protect my property. In Europe, if I left my property somewhere, I can go back and there will be a pretty good chance that it will still be where I left it (although this is changing here too).  The issue is not only about poverty, because even a poor person can share a culture where he is taught not to violate another's property. 
   
   
7. The fact that some generalisation causes offense may be the very reason why I warned that this kind of debate may cause offense, but more so in my view, due to the fact that criticism of culture has become politically incorrect. And that is the main thrust of my piece. We cannot find a solution to poverty in Africa if we lack the intellectual credibility to ask hard questions about culture and values.
   
   
8. I do not think one should oversimplify culture or pigeonhole individuals. But there is a unique thing about humans and language that separates us from animals. See the brilliant TED talk of Yuval Hariri who makes this point brilliantly. https://www.ted.com/talks/yuval_noah_harari_what_explains_the_rise_of_humans. Humans can mobilise and built power structures through cooperation (culture) that goes beyond their immediate locations building and perpetuating certain values. The values implicit in such cultures or power structures, then spread until it becomes embedded in structures like the legal system and other institutions, which ultimately shapes the economic history of such collectives. If we shape it badly, we will remain poor. Culture is a collective phenomenon it cannot be dealt with individually as you proposed.
   
   
9. My point is this: the idea: "that property should be shared" is a value that is widely subscribed in many of the cultures of Africans (but also in a variety of other collective groups in the world, but lets focus on Africa for now) and this value carries more weight amongst them than the Roman Law or rather a western approach to property, that no-one may violate the property of an individual unless very compelling reasons exist to do so.  (There is of course a parallel issue here, the value of the sanctity of the individual rather than the collective, but let us limit the debate about notions of property in the light of the Ramaphosa's remark.)
   
   
10. If this is empirically correct, then it follows logically that such cultures will tolerate violations of property, and produce a system of values that will have dire consequences on wealth creation. If I am correct about this, then we can fix the problem of poverty in Africa, by having a critical look at what values are promoted or collectively held in African cultures. Are we teaching our children ubuntu or the ten commandments (not suggesting that the ten commandments are any better or ubuntu worse)? Why can we not have a tolerance for a competition of ideas/values? Why do we value the idea that all cultures have equal value and should be respected? If we fix the problem there, we may fix poverty in Africa. But my protest lies in this, we should be assured that we will probably perpetuate poverty if our President shapes the norms of South Africans by claiming, in such a bold way: Expropriation without compensation.
    
    
11. It serves no purpose to demarcate culture as you say, this is a meaningless exercise.  But I think libertarian obsessions with individuality may ignore the power and influence of values and ideas that inform collective behaviour to the point where a community just cannot escape poverty for some reason. Bear in mind such behaviour will certainly affect the wealth and poverty of the individual. So I disagree with your approach that: "One would have to look at the individual to determine what each believes and what not, with regards to property... assuming those beliefs by group, based on attributes of the group, makes collectivist assumptions about the individuals in those groups." Such an approach will not help us to break the curse of poverty. What we should look out for is bad values, collectively held, identify them and then criticise them, hoping it will stop the harm that such collective values cause all of us. 
    
    
12. Keep in mind, we do not need to identify the collective (group) that perpetuates bad values. This will only cause offense and as you say is impossible to achieve anyway. But we may identify poor values and stimulate a critical discourse about what is good and what is bad about ideas embedded in cultures in our society as we find them, instead of succumbing to political correctness that simply prohibit or resist such discourse.  Maybe a critical analysis of Ubuntu is a good place to start considering that this system of values has become a holy cow in South Africa as manifested by the Constitutional Court recently. (See the work of Dr Kroeze Doing things with Values an article in which she criticises the Constitutional Court about the way it flirts with Ubuntu as a constitutional value and reflect on the way the court introduces such values into our jurisprudence particularly insofar as it is at odds with liberalism, minority protection and multiculturalism.)
    
    
13. Finally to describe these ideas as "racist" is unfortunate. In fact, the accusation only demonstrates, some collective oversensitivity to race and a propensity to sensorship. It perpetuates some form of political correctness and do not advance intellectual curiosity. To turn a blind eye to finding a solution for poverty in so many parts of our world particularly Africa requires intellectual integrity, the willingness to ask hard uncomfortable questions.  
    
    
14. I don't think that the fact that I identify what I see as poor values prevalent amongst some African cultures, to be any more racist than the characterisations of Zulus and Xosas as collectivist. I certainly do not consider this remark as racist and is curious why looking for flaws in values held collectively by some African cultures should be so described. Culture is collectivist in nature, to deny it is foolish. To describe the task of identifying bad values collectively held by groups in Africa as "racist", may not be wise either. I have a suspicion, that when the problems of Africa becomes the problems of Europe or Canada, such political correctness will end and it will become imperative to start asking hard questions. But it raises the question, whether western culture, if there is such a thing, will be strong enough to defend its values or will be allowed to change or eroded due to such unrestrained notions of political correctness or an oversensitivity about race.

Andre

[Stephen van Jaarsveldt]

Thank you for making me really think and in particular your last two points about racism - I don't want to shy away from debate and if Africa sucks, then we should say so and figure out why. You also make a good point on an individualist approach to changing behaviour though... objectivism may have won a few supporters for Libertarianism, but I doubt it had a nett positive effect. If we're going to address issues of property or freedom, then I guess criticism of particular cultural attributes or the promotion of good cultural attributes would be sensible.

That said, I still don't think there is anything peculiar about how people in Africa see property which is different or unique to the rest of the world. Bernie Sanders said the same thing in the USA - he just said "taxes" in stead of "expropriation" and "the 1%" in stead of "white farmers"... but it's the same message and it appeared to appeal very much to Americans, especially younger Americans. I appreciate your experience of property rights in Africa, but I've seen the same violations in South America, Central America, the Orient and Europe - it is not unique.

That also doesn't automatically make it cultural - it could be institutional or genetic or environmental or political or any number or combination of factors. It could also be that a disrespect for property comes from past oppression i.e. ideas of restitution or retribution. There is certainly a lot of that in Africa... and South America and India and China... I agree that a culture of disrespect for property is bad and I agree with Hariri that this could happen via culture, but I just don't see it as being unique to "Africa" or necessarily cultural. It could, but I don't think so.

From a statistical perspective, if you want to talk about majorities and "in general", then you must refer to China and India, which between the two of them hold almost half of the world's population. Any other culture you care to mention is insignificant by comparison, if you're talking plain numbers. The whole of Africa is outnumbered by China and also by India. Between the three of them, they outnumber the entire rest of the world and each outnumber all of North America by at least double.

I sense that we're going to go in circles with this though, since you say "they do" and I say "no they don't"... so unless we find a way of proving our positions empirically, we're not going to persuade each other (about the small part we disagree on). Maybe there is some kind of index of measure of property rights which we can consult, then rank all the cultures of the world according to that, block them according to continent and come to some kind of general assumption about which continent supports property the least or most...

In the meantime, I'm putting my money on Asia as being the least supportive of property rights, by head-count. We can go per capita... then I'm changing my bet to Europe, where socialist ideas have permeated dialogue to the point where it is starting to trump culture.

But I think we actually agree in principle, I'm just nit-picking on your use of "Africa" - I think that is too wide. Besides, finding that China disrespects property even more than Africa may win me the debate, but that still leaves your question... what do we do about this destructive attitude which pervades large parts of Africa and in particular South Africa ? That is a tough question and thanks for raising it. Me pointing out that it also applies to the USA or to China might be besides the point.

S.

[Andre]

Dear Stephan

So, do you think that we have a natural law of nature here? 

IF: less respect for property rights = POVERTY

AND IF: culture is taught

AND IF: culture represents taught views on notions of property and property rights

THEN: some cultures promote POVERTY

Andre

Andre G Heyns BA SecBA (SA) LLB LLM (Jhb)

Advocate of the High Court of South Africa

Tel:  +27 (0)11 083 9963

Fax: +27 (0) 86 523 5252

Skype: andreatknysna

email: andre...@gmail.com

[Stephen van Jaarsveldt]

There is plenty of evidence for Economic Freedom = More Wealth... and since being able to do with your property what you like is part of economic freedom, I think it is not unreasonable to presume Less Respect for Property = Poverty... but I'm not sure what the relationship is.

Economic Freedom (as per Fraser Institute's Economic Freedom Index) seems to explain about 61% of income and I would imagine that property is a large part of Economic Freedom... but that still leaves 39% of Income / Poverty which is NOT caused by Economic Freedom i.e. Property... so I wouldn't go so far as to call it a "law" or to use an equals sign... but there certainly is a relationship.

So, Poverty = F(Property) + E, where E is at least 39%.

I agree Culture = Taught... but as Richard Dawkins pointed out, some thoughts and ideas have characteristics of physical or genetic processes. Some ideas are particularly persistent and most ideas mutate as they propagate through the population... so even though it is taught, it could still act like genes do... hence the term "meme". But let me agree with Culture = Taught for now.

So,

Poverty = F(Income) + E0, where E0 is "some other stuff" / error, including inheritance, luck, etc. but probably small

Income = F(Economic Freedom) + E1, where E1 ~ 39% (as of 2007 - I'll attach the graph below)

Economic Freedom = F(Property) + E2, where E2 is probably less significant but not negligible

Property = F(Culture) +E3, where E3 is probably quite small, but I'm not sure how small

Culture = F(Taught) + F(Meme) + E4, and E4 could be zero.

Ne ?

S.

​

[Erik Peers]

Max du Preez weighs in in land expropriation on behalf or Terror Lakota