Why does the gov't get to determine who gets the property that I own when I die, as opposed to me via a will or similar? Are you against private property all together?
there's a big difference between private and personal property: personal property is yours to enjoy, private property is yours so NOBODY ELSE can enjoy it. you should be able to hand down personal, sentimental objects or lands (eg the house you grew up in!)
this is quite extreme i realise. in practical terms of policy, i'd advocate for a HEAVY increase in inheritance tax.
That is not at all correct lmao. Private property is something you own. You can choose to share it, or not, because it's yours and you can decide what to do with it, including giving it to someone else in the event that you die.
Because Zimbabwe is such a thriving country these days. :sarcasm:
Lambeth, you really don't see further than the end of your own nose, do you.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cf6QaoiXIAA1uhS.jpg
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2003/12/how-to-kill-a-country/302845/
This article from now 15 years ago does a very through job in how much Mugabe and his cronies fucked Zimbabwe during that time. It was not only white farmers Mugabe went after, but also other blacks from a minority tribe because one of his political rivals was from that tribe. To downplay the road South Africa is going while we damn well know what it'll all lead to is just scummy as fuck.
its a gross oversimplification sure
Okay, so, then, inheritance is valid. And the next step is: if you own something (ie a farm) the government has no right to take it away from you (or the person you left it to) on the basis of your heritage and give it to someone else.
So private property is just personal property that someone isn't using in a way you personally approve of?
You specifically give 'the house you grew up in' as an example of something people should be allowed to inherit... but not for South Africans who grew up on their parents' farms?
You're not making sense here.
Inheritance is not illegitimate.
Thats crap.
There needs to be a ceiling on it but barring it whole sale is dumb
Even if for some reason you think stealing land and giving it to another ethnic group is a good idea - it's probably not going to play out like that.
I'm guessing the farm land will be seized and granted by and large to supporters of the ruling party for more political power. Seeing how sa already imports most of their food, I wouldnt be surprised to see not much change directly. I'm sure the leaders will go "see everything is fine" and the black majority (who already are generally in favor of the land grabs) will be even more pleased with their corrupt government.
Im curious to any indirect problems that will come from this years down the road. Maybe not famine, but I wouldn't be surprised if western investors completely stop investing.
Do you ever actually bother to think at all before you slam your knuckles into the keyboard and hit the post button?
Commie scum get out
Edit:
Literally
Why don't you go get fucked yourself?
wheres the roll eyes icon when you need it
"those who are actually from the country" don't exist. They got wiped out by invaders - no, not evil whitey, other african tribes. Quite literally most of south africa's black population are multi generation immigrants from other african countries. If anyone could actually make the case for having been there the longest, the Boers would certainly be in the top 2.
You might want to have a read up on who the zulu people are, and see if you still want to hold onto this narrative of only white people being colonisers.
I see you still do the hit and run accusing people of racism. You are just a left-leaning tudd.
Oooh they want Zimbabwe 2
The French were unironically right with what they did - every single thing they built they tore down, down to the telephone poles
Another epic zinger from Lambeth "It's okay to be bigoted against a group of people if you're part of it" Jones
While I think Tsuchinko is completely off his rocker on his call here, and it's a downright stupid suggestion, I do want to clarify what exactly he's talking about with private property.
Specifically, he is referring to the Marxist idea of private property, as opposed to the more classical idea we are used to.
In a nutshell, in capitalist societies like we're used to, there are two classes of property:
Public property is that which is controlled by the government, is funded through taxes, and provides a service on behalf of the citizens of said government.
Private property is that which is controlled by individual citizens or corporations, are entirely funded by individual citizens and corporations, and provide whatever function those owners deem appropriate.
Contrast to Marxist societies, where there are three classes of property:
Public property is that which is owned collectively by the commune, is supported through communal effort, and provides a service on behalf of the citizens of the commune.
Private property is that which is owned by individual citizens or corporations [...] ; it's exactly the same as capitalist private property.
Personal property is that which is owned by individual citizens and has immediate personal function, such as a hairbrush on your counter or the house in which you live.
In Marxist theory, there is a subtle but very important distinction between private and personal property: Personal property is something that has an immediate personal function, such as your food, your clothes, your computer, and your house. Private property is something that you own but doesn't have immediate personal function, such as a summer-time house, a yacht, or a convenience store.
Virtually (if not literally) all flavors of Communism share this Marxist idea of property, and fiercely value and protect the right of personal property, while vehemently rejecting the idea of private property. To a stalwart Marxist, either the property has immediate personal function, or it belongs to the state. The idea of individuals privately owning businesses, homes they don't live in year-round, private boats, etc is in fundamental opposition to the stalwart Marxist - those things should belong to the commune, where they can serve someone who actually needs them (EG a homeless person can use your second home or honestly even your yacht) (the business doesn't really play a role in a pure commune, which abolishes the idea currency; it'd probably be converted into some sort of depot where people can deposit and withdraw items as necessary).
Again, I'm not agree with Tsuchinko at all. I think his idea is stupid.
I just want to clarify what he means when he says there is a distinction between private and personal property. Because, while they are synonyms in the capitalist theory we're all used to, there is a distinction between them in Marxist theory.
HI! I can't control what people think of me, nobody really can but I wasn't trying to accuse anyone one of being racist! Nor was I trying to zing anyone! I was asking a question, no matter how poorly worded it was.
Hello sir I hope this message finds you in good health
since it has now been communicated that you were asking legitimately if black people cannot farm I am pleased to present the idea to you that someones race has very little bearing on their agricultural aptitude
I'm fairly certain nobody was ridiculing you for your poorly worded statement, they were just commenting on your ritualistic need to defend those who're acting out of line, those who are obviously in the wrong. If that wasn't an underlying trend within your posts, people wouldn't feel the need to point it out. Certainly not this many, at least.
south africa was literally the only truly african nation that got into the modern era properly but now here's the downfall.. and it's painful to see.
they said apartheid was wrong but this is idi amin level of crazy.
False.
The southern end of Africa was essentially empty when the Boers arrived and established their first colony. The only people who were present in any capacity were the Khoisan peoples - the Khoikhoi and San Khoi, more colloquially know to westerners as the Bushmen. Boers traded quite often with these peoples, resources and materials for land and so on. Basically, Boers to a good extent bought and traded for the lands they inhabited. That's not stealing, is it?
The vast majority of black people living in the southern African regions are descendants of the aftermath of the great Bantu expansion from central Africa. The warlike Bantu tribes and other related groups migrated south and just took over with force of arms. The Khoisan groups are vastly underrepresented in the overall population nowadays due to both crossbreeding between the cultures and violence. The Khoisan are themselves a physically and culturally distinct subgroup of Africans. They're marginalized enough by the Bantu majority that they're campaigning for cultural autonomy and land rights.
By your logic, kick like 95%+ or god know how many black people out of the entire southern third of Africa and give it all back to the some few hundred thousands or, at best, millions remaining. Because they were the ones who it was all arguably stolen from. By other black people. And ironically, a good portion of the Boers should then be allowed to stay because the lands of their forefathers were fairly traded and bartered for.
But back to you. Trust me, you don't want to usher in a "oh they deserve it" mentality.
... Just like last time. This is all you do... drive-by shitpost in something you see as "race related," and then once called out, "oh I'm sorry!"
Fuck off.
So realtalk, would any legit PMC take a defense job from them? It's legally their land(No matter what the state tries, due to not letting them dispute it in court), their lives are at risk from both civilians attacking white people there, and state sanctioned thugs.
Save everybodys time by first formulating your questions properly. But judging from the over-all response your posting, I'm drawing the conclusion that this has happened before.
Even the most experienced white African farmer can't make crops grow if they don't have enough water dude...
Sure, and my dick can sing the German anthem.
It's really weird to call me out for bringing up race when this thread is about singling out people for their race.
Thing is, people are doing the opposite of that. People listen to what you've said in this thread and others you've posted in, and by now know your opinions, attitude, and modus operandi. Your near-constant attempts to ~expose the bad bigots~ or whatever, and the subsequent attempts at weaseling out of it when it turns out you had completely misrepresented the situation and took strides longer than your legs, making a total ass of yourself and then digging yourself in deeper by going "I totally did not say that and YOU are the bad guy" when going back a few posts it turns out that yes, you did say exactly that and everyone else is just stating facts. And it does happen quite regularly.
Your problem is not that we ignore what you say, it's that we remember it.
You've proven that you can be reasonable and agreeable when you calm down and suppress the shitty attitude before posting so how about you do that more often and improve the experience for everyone involved especially yourself, eh?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.