LIVE ARCHIVE: Vote on land expropriation without compensation

Watch the replay of parliament considering the ad hoc committee report to initiate and introduce legislation amending Section 25 of the Constitution.


Sort by:
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Top voted

You must be signed in and an Insider Gold subscriber to comment.


These people are playing with fire in the destruction of the very basic fabric of our society !!!
I forlornly hope that they realise the gravity of their proposals.

What is the aim of this exercise? Is this just another part of the stupid socialist agenda where immature, unaccountable, and irresponsible collectivist parasites abuse their legislative powers to plunder other people’s property as part of an effort to consume the means of production, or is this another effort by con artist career politicians to sell snake oil to ignorant voters? The implications are the same. Their actions will lead to economic contraction, rising unemployment, and hunger.

In all instances of legalized plunder, where governments infringe on property rights, they always blame the victims of plunder, never the perpetrators. They blame the employer, the farmer, the food manufacturer, the taxpayer, the retailer, the doctor, the accountant, the secretary, the teacher, and all other capitalists who work to accumulate savings by serving society as a whole.

Property changes hands all the time. The people at the Deeds Office are very busy. There is an abundance of property available for redistribution through the time-tested market mechanism of supply and demand. This efficient, positive, mutually beneficial, fair, and just process channels property to those who serve society and avoids those who sponge on society.

This, however, doesn’t satisfy the selfish agenda of the socialists.
Where a common burglar uses a crowbar, the socialist parasite uses the law.

The aggressor blames his defenseless victim and accuses him of “exploitation”, “hoarding”, “selfish greed” and elitism, while in reality, nobody can accumulate property without first providing a value-adding service to society. Under a system of rule of law, a property is a reward for serving consumers well. Under a system of socialism, wealth is a reward for stealing from society. The evidence before the Zondo Commission proves this point.

Property owners have to use that property for the benefit of consumers, otherwise, they will lose it in no time. The moment the farmer and factory owner stops to serve consumers in the most productive manner, they will lose their property through liquidation. Even the person who does not own property reaps enormous benefits from the sanctity of property rights. The livelihood of the person who does not own property depends on those who do. The Zimbabwe and Venezuela experiments show this clearly.

In the capitalist system, the property owner is a slave to the consumer. In the socialist system, the consumer is a slave to the government and the privileged political elite.

Expropriation, with or without compensation, will destroy the basis of economic activity, remove individual freedom, cause rising unemployment, rising hunger, as well as civil unrest.

“The system of private property is the most important guaranty of freedom, not only for those who own property, but scarcely less for those who do not.” – Friedrich August von Hayek

Correct on all accounts.

I encourage commentators to use Google Maps Layers to have a look at the farms in the Western Cape for example and ask yourselves: what would this look like had we, the colonisers never come here.

The difference is stark!!
Google the satellite images of Port Edward on the Northern side of the river and the Southern side of the old Transkei that.

Bear in mind that all the land south of that river was given to the Black People in the 1976 already to develop as they see fit !!

The Southern side is the future if this madness continues!!

Casper, in Berlin, the Wall marked the stark contrast between the results of capitalism and socialism. The wall divided families and bloodlines. West Berlin had the BMW and the Mercedes Benz. East Berlin had the Trabant. We cannot blame it on poverty, colonialism, or apartheid. The difference can only be attributed to property rights or the lack thereof.

In South Africa, that contrast is marked by a barbed-wire fence. On the side that protects property rights, the farmer has equity, running water, fat and productive cattle, and a flush toilet. On the side where people believe in collectivism, the farmer is poor, his wife has to fetch water from the river, his cattle are tick-infested, emaciated, and infertile and he does not even have a pit latrine.

This is the difference between property rights and communalism – a flush toilet or a walk to the nearest bush.

End of comments.



Subscribe to our mailing list

* indicates required
Moneyweb newsletters

Instrument Details  

You do not have any portfolios, please create one here.
You do not have an alert portfolio, please create one here.

Follow us: