Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Account suspended
    Joined
    02 Jan '15
    Moves
    10189
    10 Apr '15 21:01
    http://news.yahoo.com/mugabe-tells-africa-media-dont-want-see-white-151947058.html
  2. SubscriberAThousandYoung
    iEn guardia, Ingles!
    tinyurl.com/y43jqfyd
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    24791
    10 Apr '15 21:16
    Yes because he kicked farmers off their land because of their race.
  3. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39965
    10 Apr '15 21:42
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    Yes because he kicked farmers off their land because of their race.
    On what basis did those farmers get that land?
  4. Joined
    12 Jul '08
    Moves
    12091
    10 Apr '15 22:17
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    On what basis did those farmers get that land?
    Was every white person simply handed land? Each white person born was given land?
  5. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39965
    10 Apr '15 22:25
    Originally posted by Eladar
    Was every white person simply handed land? Each white person born was given land?
    Don't know. Do know that in the 1930 Land Apportionment Act, the land in then Rhodesia was divided by race with whites, who comprised only about 4% of the population, getting more than half of the land.

    http://www.raceandhistory.com/Zimbabwe/factsheet.html
  6. Joined
    12 Jul '08
    Moves
    12091
    10 Apr '15 22:28
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Don't know. Do know that in the 1930 Land Apportionment Act, the land in then Rhodesia was divided by race with whites, who comprised only about 4% of the population, getting more than half of the land.

    http://www.raceandhistory.com/Zimbabwe/factsheet.html
    Ah, so all white people were simply given land. Glad you cleared that up.
  7. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39965
    10 Apr '15 22:30
    Originally posted by Eladar
    Ah, so all white people were simply given land. Glad you cleared that up.
    Glad to help.
  8. SubscriberAThousandYoung
    iEn guardia, Ingles!
    tinyurl.com/y43jqfyd
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    24791
    10 Apr '15 23:181 edit
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    On what basis did those farmers get that land?
    By growing food with their hands on it. Living on it and improving it Locke style.

    wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_property

    If it was only a change of ownership on paper it would be one thing - an attack on private property "rights". But they physically dragged people off the land they lived and worked on or just killed them outright.
  9. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39965
    10 Apr '15 23:27
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    By growing food with their hands on it. Living on it and improving it Locke style.
    They did not acquire the land by homesteading but by force.
  10. SubscriberAThousandYoung
    iEn guardia, Ingles!
    tinyurl.com/y43jqfyd
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    24791
    10 Apr '15 23:39
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    They did not acquire the land by homesteading but by force.
    You know this because...they are white. Does that principle apply elsewhere? No whites should own land anywhere but Europe?

    I am not interested in the homestead principle because it demands "original" appropriation. I am concerned with the natural right to personal property. If you live there and work there with your hands it is yours.

    Zimbabwe's indigenous people are the Khoisan by the way, not Mugabe and his Bantus. Black Africans treat the Khoisan like crap.
  11. SubscriberAThousandYoung
    iEn guardia, Ingles!
    tinyurl.com/y43jqfyd
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    24791
    11 Apr '15 00:02
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Don't know. Do know that in the 1930 Land Apportionment Act, the land in then Rhodesia was divided by race with whites, who comprised only about 4% of the population, getting more than half of the land.

    http://www.raceandhistory.com/Zimbabwe/factsheet.html
    Those whites weren't working all that land with their hands. That kind of ownership is different.
  12. Joined
    29 Dec '08
    Moves
    6788
    11 Apr '15 00:06
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    You know this because...they are white. Does that principle apply elsewhere? No whites should own land anywhere but Europe?

    I am not interested in the homestead principle because it demands "original" appropriation. I am concerned with the natural right to personal property. If you live there and work there with your hands it is yours.

    Zimb ...[text shortened]... the Khoisan by the way, not Mugabe and his Bantus. Black Africans treat the Khoisan like crap.
    "Locke seems to have been mistaken about the agricultural practices of at least some Indian tribes, which may have met his own criteria for ownership. But the problem with Locke’s theory of property is not really empirical. Rather, it’s that Locke encourages the fantasy, still popular among some libertarians, that property relations can be generated by a sort of immaculate conception in which no one’s freedom is violated. David Hume got closer to the truth. As he observed in Of the Original Contract, ”there is no property in durable objects, such as lands or houses, when carefully examined in passing from hand to hand, but must, in some period, have been founded on fraud and injustice.” It’s time and positive law, not the original acquisition, that makes property legitimate."

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/misreading-locke/

    It seems to me that only the first arrivals in and use a territory for living (say, an island, to make it neat and tidy) have even the potential to claim Lockean ownership -- although they may later voluntarily transfer ownership -- and then, only if they meet his other criteria.

    The first arrivals were probably non-human animals, but they don't count, do they?

    Obviously Mugabe is a racist. Nothing follows from this digression on ownership, except to rationalize his racism.
  13. SubscriberAThousandYoung
    iEn guardia, Ingles!
    tinyurl.com/y43jqfyd
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    24791
    11 Apr '15 00:09
    Originally posted by JS357
    "Locke seems to have been mistaken about the agricultural practices of at least some Indian tribes, which may have met his own criteria for ownership. But the problem with Locke’s theory of property is not really empirical. Rather, it’s that Locke encourages the fantasy, still popular among some libertarians, that property relations can be generated by a sort ...[text shortened]... s a racist. Nothing follows from this digression on ownership, except to rationalize his racism.
    If the first arrivals abandon the land they lose ownership in the Lockean sense. That spot is not indefinitely owned by the first person to plant a seed there. Ownership is based on mixing labor with land. When you stop doing that you stop owning it.
  14. Joined
    29 Dec '08
    Moves
    6788
    11 Apr '15 00:24
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    If the first arrivals abandon the land they lose ownership in the Lockean sense. That spot is not indefinitely owned by the first person to plant a seed there. Ownership is based on mixing labor with land. When you stop doing that you stop owning it.
    Agreed, assuming this abandonment would be voluntary. And it would not be counted as abandonment that permits a fresh taking, if the original owner voluntarily sold it to someone of their choice who then worked it, rented it to them, or bequeathed it to them.

    Also, agricultural practices include letting land lie fallow to restore fertility.
  15. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39965
    11 Apr '15 01:58
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    If the first arrivals abandon the land they lose ownership in the Lockean sense. That spot is not indefinitely owned by the first person to plant a seed there. Ownership is based on mixing labor with land. When you stop doing that you stop owning it.
    Please. The small number of whites who arrived in the valleys of Zimbabwe did not find unused land; people had been farming there for thousands of years. The land was seized by force and as the link provided shows further land grabs by whites were enforced by tyrannical laws from an occupying power for decades and then by an apartheid regime.

    There would have been little point to the revolution if it simply left in place a domination of land and the economy based on over a 100 years of racist oppression.
Back to Top