Category Archives: Private Property

UPDATED (4/5): South Africa Land Theft: Crappy Constitution All But Allows It

Africa, Communism, Constitution, Free Speech, Private Property, South-Africa

NEW COLUMN: “South Africa Land Theft: Constitution All But Allows It” is the current column, now on Townhall.com. Unabridged version can be read on WND.COM and the Unz Review.

An excerpt:

Up until, or on the day, a predictable calamity unfolds in South Africa, you still find Western media insisting that,

* No, there’s no racial component to the butchering of thousands of white rural folks in ways that would make Shaka Zulu proud.
* No, the mutilated, tortured bodies of Boer and British men, women and children aren’t evidence of racial hatred, but a mere artifact of good old crime. No hate crimes. No crimes against humanity. Move along. Let the carnage play on.

And the latest:

To listen to leftist, counterfactual, ahistoric pabulum served up by most in media, a decision by South Africa’s Parliament to smooth the way for an expropriation without compensation of private property came out of … nowhere.

It just so happened—pure fluke!—that the permanently entrenched, racialist parties in parliament used their thumping majorities to vote for legalizing state theft from a politically powerless minority. Didn’t see that coming!

And still they beat on breast: How did the mythical land of Nelson Mandela turn into Joseph Conrad’s “Heart of Darkness”?

How did that country’s “vaunted” constitution yield to “the horror, the horror” of land theft?

Easily, even seamlessly—as I’ve been warning since the 2011 publication of “Into the cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America From Post-Apartheid South Africa,” which provided the analytical edifice for what’s unfolding. You can pile more murders, more state corruption, more horror atop the same analytical foundation; but, distilled to bare bones, the truth about South Africa remains unchanged.

One of Cyril Ramaphosa’s presidential campaign promises was to finally get down to the business of the people: stealing private property. Since replacing Jacob Zuma as president, Ramaphosa has openly endeavored to “speed up the transfer of land from white to black owners after his inauguration two weeks ago.” Yet, this inherently aggressive, coercive act was studiously finessed by the news cartel.

Before Ramaphosa, Zuma, too, had “called on parliament to change South Africa’s Constitution to allow the expropriation of white-owned land without compensation.”

Unlike so many celebrity journos involved, both men know that said constitution is no bulwark against state expropriation. Or, against any “public” or private violence, for that matter. As a protector of individual rights to life, liberty and property, the thing is worse than useless—a wordy and worthless document.

Take Section 12 of this progressive constitution. It enshrines the “Freedom and Security of the Person.” Isn’t it comforting to know that in a country where almost everyone knows someone who has been raped, robbed, hijacked, murdered, or all of the above—the individual has a right to live free of all those forms of violence?

Here’s the rub …

… READ THE REST.  “South Africa Land Theft: Constitution All But Allows It” is now on Townhall.com. Read the long version on WND.COM and the Unz Review.

UPDATE (4/5): Free Speech? Not under the SA Constitution.

Property-Rights Obliterator Cyril Ramaphosa Is A New Party Boss In The Dominant-Party State Of South Africa. No Reason To Party.

Africa, Communism, History, Private Property, South-Africa

“A disastrous president is shown the door. Now for the clean-up,” writes one of the otherwise intelligent generic writers at The Economist. (These excellent, humble journalists omit the names on their always-edifying reports.) This Pollyanna-like pablum is in the February 17 issue.

Enough of the ahistoric deception! “In Africa, You Oust A Tyrant, But Not Tyranny:”

Nobody with a modicum of cerebral agility should see in the new South-African Strong Man, union boss-cum-tycoon Cyril Ramaphosa, a significant change of the guard. There’s a reason Ramaphosa riles crowds at a South African Communist Party rally just as easily as he excites the head of Goldman Sachs’s South Africa office. (For a clue, ask yourselves how a union boss becomes a tycoon.)
Yet in the tradition of dimming debate, the chattering class has reduced systemic corruption in South Africa and near collapse in Zimbabwe, respectively, to the shenanigans of two men: Jacob Zuma and Robert Mugabe. …

By the way, Cyril Ramaphosa’s promise of “land redistribution through expropriation without compensation” is also the ANC’s vow in 1994. Now he is delivering, as fools continue to celebrate the crowning of a billionaire and an ex-union thug (Ramaphosa).

Boldly libertarian, but doable, the solutions are in “Into The Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America From Post-Apartheid South Africa.”

… READ:  “A New Party Boss In South Africa Is No Reason To Party” is now on Townhall.com.

Or the version for nerds: “In Africa, You Oust A Tyrant, But Not Tyranny.”

As I Said A Few Posts Ago Regarding Cyril Ramaphosa’s South Africa …

Economy, Federal Reserve Bank, Private Property, South-Africa

Via Zero Hedge comes the news that South Africa’s ruling African National Congress has just caused the Rand to plummet with the news that it will seek “constitutional changes for land expropriation (from whites) without compensation.” The ruling party, moreover, has decided that “the Reserve Bank must be wholly owned by the state.”

As my book, “Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America From Post-Apartheid South Africa,” shows, the SA constitution already allows expropriation of private property, with only nominal compensation.

Facebook Friends were angry at me for raining on their parade, a few posts back, writing that the appointment of a new, South-African leader to head the dominant-party state was an insignificant game of musical chairs.

But already the news out of Cyril Ramaphosa’s South Africa is bad.

As for the alarm over the nationalization of the country’s Reserve Bank. Reserve Banks are private in name only. Who still pretends this is not the case? Central banks serve The State and are for The State and its cronies. Private shareholders are ensconced to put up a facade to the contrary.

The Colorado Cake Case: Why Such Cruelty To A Christian?

Christianity, Freedom of Religion, Gender, Homosexuality, Individual Rights, Paleolibertarianism, Private Property

Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips is a deeply religious Christian. Why would a gay couple want to compel him to decorate a cake with words his faith rejects? What kind of craven cruelty would compel such coercion? Why, David Mullins and Charlie Craig, would you proceed with force against a private property owner? What’s wrong with you?

A crude reductio ad absurdum should help:

A retail store selling Nazi memorabilia opens its doors in my neighborhood. I enter in search of the yellow Star of David Jews were forced to wear during the Third Reich. The proprietor, decked out in Nazi insignia and regalia, says, “I’m sorry, we don’t serve Jews.” “Don’t be like that,” I say. “Where else can I find a pair of clip-on swastika earrings?” The Nazi sympathizer is polite but persistent: “Ma’am, I mean no disrespect, but back in the Old Country, Jews murdered my great grandfather’s cousin and used his blood in the leavening of the Passover matzah.” “Yeah,” I reply. “I’m familiar with that blood libel. I assure you my own mother’s matzo balls were free of the blood of brats, gentile or Jewish. No matter. I can see where you’re coming from. I’m sorry for your loss. Good luck.”

There! Did that hurt?

Did I rush off to rat out my Nazi neighbor to the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice? Not on your life. A principled Jewish libertarian (with a sense of humor)—who believes in absolute freedom of association and the rights of private property—would doff his Kippah and walk out.

Live and let live.

Writes Joseph Wright, in the Denver Post:

A devout Muslim with a wonderful singing voice runs a small music business featuring his CDs. A Christian couple asks this Muslim to record a song for the wedding. The song includes the words: “Jesus, resurrected from the grave and God incarnate.” The Muslim man declines, saying his sincere religious beliefs prevent him from recording the song. Would the Colorado Civil Rights Commission (CCRC) take action against him and inflict financial penalties for abiding by his convictions?

A non-religious couple asks a Jewish kosher deli with fantastic food to cater their wedding reception, but demand that ham be included on the menu. The deli refuses. Would the CCRC take action against this deli for its religious convictions?

One more question: Would legal action be taken only against Christians practicing their sincerely held beliefs or against people of all beliefs?

All strength, Jack Phillips.