Considering all that is going wrong in Zimbabwe, 10 sextillion percent inflation, 90% unemployment, mass starvation, and disease, it is hard to imagine that the new unity government could do anything that would worsen the situation. Unfortunately, they have found a way to make things worse. The BBC reports that in the last 14 days, the new unity government has seized 77 white owned farms. Pascal Salin once remarked “Property rights, not democracy, is the mark of a free society.” Clearly the tiny shred of property rights that had existed since Mugabe’s rise to power has now been destroyed. How much worse can things get?
BBC Zimbabwe Inflation Video (2:32 min)
{ 44 comments }
Question: how did those white farmers get their farms in the middle of an African country in the first place?
What does it matter? Any injustice in acquisition, if there is any, is centuries old. How does a criminal organization voiding the more legitimate claims of farmers over the land solve anything? It’ll worsen things, actually, with said organization running the farms into ruin, wasting resources. The only case where expropriation is justified is where the theft is recent enough to merit it, and the original victim or a near enough ancestor present to be compensated. Many descendants of the original white settlers of Zimbabwe (ex-Rhodesia) have likely worked the land and put it to good use. Why should a group of thugs take it from them? Presumably their claim is even weaker, and the damage they will wreak great… add this to the list of idiotic crimes.
It’s always a matter of comparing alternatives. In this case, do you want the white farmers to own the farmers or the crazy government?
Possible answer: Through lifelong efforts, labor and capital accumulation done by several generations of white settlers. Which enabled the same land to sustain much more people than before.
With this now reverted by the confiscations it spells bad times for the now unsustainable number of people living there.
Theft is theft.
Do we even know that the farmers necessarily got the land by theft originally? Do two wrongs make a right, to use a cliche? Like I said, many of the crimes are distantly removed from the present, so what is the justification for a bunch of thugs to deprive current owners of their land? Whom does it benefit? It certainly will not increase productivity…
How do you know that?
Acquisition of land by theft or government decree, is this that which has happened in Palestine?
charlie
Question: how did those white farmers get their farms in the middle of an African country in the first place?
–Clever. This is always the argument. Maybe they stole it from the ancient African tribes that had no knowledge in farming and depleted the soil of nutrients? Or perhaps when in the 1980′s and Zimbabwe was doing Ok they were the ones that were providing food for everyone? Remember Zambia was doing good (for African standards) in the 70′s, then fell behind after government regulations and intrusion and then Zimbabwe was a net exporter! Now the government comes in and gets rid of the white settlers because of your great theory on the whites stealing everything, and look at the society now. The great redistribution theory. If the white settlers weren’t good at their trade, they wouldn’t be there still (I’m sure they are leaving immediately) and the natives would have opened their own farms. But, the best thing to do is blame the white man, because they caused all the problems in Africa right? Before European people came there, they were all drinking out of gold tea cups and sailing on the best ships and eating fine cuisine. Set all that white hatred aside, and lets see when the country was better off. With the whites predominantly owning land, or now with this fascist (I don’t even know what to consider their government other than military anarchy rule) government?
“How do you know that?”
I’m assuming until being shown otherwise. How do you know the thefts are recent, if there are any even? I’m taking Zimbabwe by analogy of South Africa, where much of the settlement dates back to over 300 years ago. If it differs then please inform me, because so far I’ve seen no argument as to how white farmers in Zimbabwe do not have title to their lands, or that there is anyone who has legitimate claim to them, as government thugs certainly do not have. Now until definitive proof is given that the land was acquired illigetimately AND that the theft was recent enough for it to matter in that the victim and the culprit is identifiable AND there is a victim to compensate, I’ll concede expropriation is justifiable in theory, but still not by goons of govt Inc.
The more important question it seems to me, is what will this lead to? Mugabe had already done this years ago and was celebrated for doing it far and wide; returning the land to its “original” owners is lauded by activists. The problem was it turned what was once the breadbasket of Africa into country that has to import almost all of its food.
Once again, playing to populist demands, which I’m sure Mugabe is doing to distract his people from his regime’s abuses and theft, will create more problems than it solves. The new “owners” can never be sure of their property rights as they are now subject to the political whims of an unstable regime. They will base their management and investment in those properties accordingly. Most of the land will lie fallow I’m sure. Look for more cries for aid in the next few years as poverty and starvation will get even worse than it already is in Zimbabwe.
For a moment, I thought it was happening in the US. I would be surprised that the government would seize the land in a blatant manner. But seeing it is Zimbabwe, I am hardly surprised.
Quite honestly, we don’t necessarily know if those farmers got their land exclusively through theft (In which case was done by the colonial government, later to become the Rhodesian government). Also, some of these farmers could have sold the land if the price was right. We cannot assume that the Zimbabwean government didn’t try to seize the land to meet its promises (Land reform). So, the issue is not as simple as it seems. What is even complicated is that those who should be guilty are dead. So we are faced with two things: either absolve those who currently own the land or punish them instead of the guilty one. With reservation, I would choose the former but not because I would condone the land theft in the name of productivity (Such argument could easily be used for land expropriation or even nationalization, never mind the fact that they are proven wrong. Such argument is at odds with the concept of property right).
I don’t claim to be an expert on Zimbabwe, but the Wikipedia entry on the issue of land reform there paints the white farmers/settlers as less heroic Randian-style individualists than a state-privileged elite that benefited from years of subsidies and land seizures from the native peoples:
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_reform_in_Zimbabwe):
After self-government was granted in 1923, the Southern Rhodesia House of Assembly created a legal framework for the allocation of land. The Land Apportionment Act of 1930 was the basis for subsequent laws and continued in effect until independence. The Land Apportionment Act divided the land of the colony into three areas: areas where only whites could own property; areas which were held in trust for indigenous peoples on a collective basis (called “tribal trust lands” by a 1965 statute and “communal areas” by a 1981 statute);[citation needed] and areas where only Shona or Ndebele could own property. One practical effect of the apportionment was that some Shona and Ndbele families were ejected from land they had held for generations.
The lack of individual title in areas designated as tribal trust lands hindered the development of the land through soil improvement, grading, irrigation, drainage, and roads. Few blacks had access to the capital funds necessary to buy large plots of land designated for sale to them in the Native Purchase areas. But many Europeans were able to buy and develop large areas of farmland. The designated European areas tended to be in the uplands where the rainfall was higher and soil thinner. These areas were optimal for large scale, mechanised farming. Government policy favored the more productive European commercial farms through training support, direct grants, loan guarantee schemes, and funding for agricultural research. Rural road building programs also favored European farming areas. In the 1950s, the government of Garfield Todd made some attempts to address problems of land tenure and development in the tribal trust lands.
There was therefore a marked racial imbalance in the ownership and distribution of land. Zimbabwean whites, although making up less than 1% of the population, owned more than 70% of the arable land, including most of the best land. Communal lands, with no property rights, were characterised by slash and burn agriculture, resulting in a tragedy of the commons.
I agree with Pat. It’s much more complex than simple restitution in this case. Ultimately, expropriation for expropriation’s sake is not going to do any good, unless it really is compensating actual victims on part of the guilty.
Two wrongs still don’t make a right, charlie. If the white farm owners maintained ownership through some kind of subsidy or privilege, then the right thing to do is simply remove the subsidy or privilege, and let them farm on a free market, not to take the land away from them. For example, to allow blacks to purchase and own land in the previously restricted area. If there are any communal lands still in existence, they should obviously be privatized.
How far back into the past should one go? Without a doubt every bit of land was once stolen from someone else, considering the incidence of conflict in human history. Look forward. Don’t keeping looking to the past for excuses. It is just not possible to rectify all the wrongs of the past – many of the perpetrators are long gone. New wrongs just perpetuate the status quo.
Segregation and colonialism was the first national injustice.
The hyperinflation alone shows there’s still a dramatic problem. What normality at all is left?
Sure, reallocation looks a bit like an irrational vengeance against the white race … but what would anyhow be the solution to go back to a free market from there? And how would you convince the formerly segregated people (if it s true) that the old subsidies grown into the farms should not immediately be paid back to govnmt alias all “the people”?
…
I have to agree with the “two wrongs don’t make a right” sentiment. White settlers in the Americas oftentimes didn’t acquire their lands justly. We’re all familiar with the many attrocities which Natives endured at white hands. America’s story is one ripe with slaughter, slavery and violence. Though this history isn’t something that makes the average American proud, it’s a legacy that some of us carry with us on both sides, who’s ancestors were in the country at that time.
That being said, if I come home to find my house occupied by a band Tonkawa braves, I will demand the return of my property. Though their ancestors inhabited my region of Texas long ago, they have no right to my land today.
Though I don’t lack any appreciation for the poetic justice, at the end of the day, I own my property because I paid for it with the fruits of my labor and under contract with the previous owner. The Tonkawa have no say in the matter.
In a free market they would have the right to work and save, allowing them to enter into a transaction with me, that grants them access to the land, or ownership there of.
“#
I have to agree with the “two wrongs don’t make a right” sentiment. White settlers in the Americas oftentimes didn’t acquire their lands justly. We’re all familiar with the many attrocities which Natives endured at white hands. America’s story is one ripe with slaughter, slavery and violence. Though this history isn’t something that makes the average American proud, it’s a legacy that some of us carry with us on both sides, who’s ancestors were in the country at that time.
That being said, if I come home to find my house occupied by a band Tonkawa braves, I will demand the return of my property. Though their ancestors inhabited my region of Texas long ago, they have no right to my land today.
Though I don’t lack any appreciation for the poetic justice, at the end of the day, I own my property because I paid for it with the fruits of my labor and under contract with the previous owner. The Tonkawa have no say in the matter.
In a free market they would have the right to work and save, allowing them to enter into a transaction with me, that grants them access to the land, or ownership there of. ”
This is a pretty stupid attitude. If A steals from B, and centuries later B’s descendants demand the return of their property from A’s descendants, they have a better claim on the property and it should be returned. I agree that just because property was once stolen doesn’t mean that it should just be a free-for-all, but clearly some people have a better claim on property than others.
Murray Rothbard wrote that in cases where the descendants could be clearly identified, land worked by slaves should rightfully become the property of the slaves’ descendants. There is nothing unlibertarian about reparations, provided they are justly administered. The idea that parties should have to “work and save” to buy back what is rightfully theirs is pretty offensive, to tell the truth.
Now, in this case, while certain individuals may have a better claim on the land than the current occupants, the *government* certainly does not, so this seizure is clearly unjust.
how can nomadic herder/grazers establish valid title to land via homesteading in the first place?
Undoing Socialism
Monday, February 23, 2009
Are Economic Terrorists Worse Than War Criminals?
The hyperinflation by the ego-driven interventionists in Zimbabwe was and is theft so none of this is surprising or ‘more’ unjust. The question is whether this cancer will invade every cell and annihilate all hope and decency of the poor victims living there.
One thing that is sure: the essential element for healing or for new life is the return to protection of property rights.
We hear about war criminals in the arena of international justice but what about the even more destructive crimes of the economic terrorists that force on people the perversion of Keynesianism or the other variations of socialism/fascism?
The unConstitutional coup in the U.S. has too much of a clamp on the international bodies (due to its monetary hegemony) to allow prosecution of economic terrorists since it is the most vile of all.
We should all be rejoicing that the dollar-denominated monetary system is collapsing because until that happens these injustices will remain as a crippling plague gripping the whole planet.
The other essential element for healing is sound money, and so a return to an international gold standard is what will allow a classical liberalism civilization to exist and bring about universal prosperity.
In all fairness, a lot of tribal cultures don’t have a concept of land ownership. Because it’s not initially scarce at first, they never develop it and never lay claim to lands.
What if space aliens came to earth and colonized the land on the ocean floor or Antarctica. Became relatively wealthy and successful because of that and their more evolved culture. And then 200 years later when humans catch up, they say “well, the space aliens stole all our land”. No bullshit, any claim that’s not out there and documented is BS. Especially in Zimbabwe, where the confiscated land is never rewarded based off of actual records. Only off of political favors.
Al Sharpton is calling for FCC investigation of New York Post because of Cartoon. Federal Government intervention in the 1st Amendment.
Federal Government attempting to force States to take Stimulus money. Direct opposition to Constitutional States Rights.
HR55: Licensing of all Guns. Congressional assault on 2nd Amendment. But criminals will retain guns.
Limitations and Jail Time for Free Speech in Europe.
And Private Property Seized.
Our freedoms are being eroded exponentially.
“Those who what security and liberty will have neither.” (Benjamin Franklin)
In nature there is no rights only might.
Therefore, according to the laws of nature, this land belongs to whoever has the muscle to take it and keep it.
If those white settlers did not have enough weapons nor a big enough army to defend their land, then it belongs to the government. Period.
If you want property rights, buy a gun before you buy real estate. Not the other way around.
I Hate Taxes,
Well, you’ve got a point…..
Advocating civil war?
David C,
“”well, the space aliens stole all our land”"
Earthlings were on this planet first, so yes the space aliens stole our land.
But, this is nature and the laws of physics haven’t changed. So might is still right. If you want land you first need the might to take it by force and then keep it by force.
Only the strong survives.
Mike,
“Though their ancestors inhabited my region of Texas long ago, they have no right to my land today.”
If they outgun you, they have all the rights.
Inquisitor wrote “What does it matter? Any injustice in acquisition, if there is any, is centuries old… The only case where expropriation is justified is where the theft is recent enough to merit it, and the original victim or a near enough ancestor present to be compensated.”
This is disingenuous. The rest is accurate, but it only goes to saying that that expropriation, done in that way, is illegitimate and/or wasteful.
Chaplin wrote “Possible answer: Through lifelong efforts, labor and capital accumulation done by several generations of white settlers. Which enabled the same land to sustain much more people than before.”
It didn’t, actually, because of the large proportion that was put into cash crop production (though more went back to food production a generation or two ago). But this change is making things even worse, because those getting the land aren’t suited by training and lifestyle to food production.
Inquisitor wrote “Do we even know that the farmers necessarily got the land by theft originally?”
We do have pretty solid records of that, as carried out by Rhodes and his associates. Again, the rest of that comment is accurate.
Charlie wrote “…The designated European areas tended to be in the uplands where the rainfall was higher and soil thinner…”
And diseases afflicting European cattle and people were more manageable.
Mike wrote “Murray Rothbard wrote that in cases where the descendants could be clearly identified, land worked by slaves should rightfully become the property of the slaves’ descendants”.
Curiously, he was quite wrong about that. At most they would have been entitled to hold it as security against just compensation, if it had still been owned by the slave owners’ descendants, only getting it if compensation wasn’t paid. If it were paid, or if it had passed to other hands, they would not be entitled to the land (and, in the latter case, they would be entitled to getting the outstanding compensation some other way).
Newson wrote “how can nomadic herder/grazers establish valid title to land via homesteading in the first place?”
There are two answers. That more or less describes the Matabele; the Mashona were more agriculturist (unless I’ve got the two muddled up). Even so, the former lifestyle does establish property rights of a different sort to outright land holding. That group would be entitled to exercise their former lifestyle, unless – as they probably would – they agreed to accept a quitrent for not doing so. That would leave the land owners with title, but encumbered and not free and clear. (There is a parallel here for most of Australian aboriginal land title claims.) This also answers David C.
When Keokuk signed away 26 million acres of native American land on July 15, 1830, he was reportedly asked how he could possibly do such a thing. His reply was that the white men did not know it but he couldn’t sign away something that was not his.
“Earthlings were on this planet first, so yes the space aliens stole our land.”
Huh? If aliens ‘homesteaded’ it first then it’s ‘theirs’. On the other hand, recognised property rights don’t cross species such that aliens, if they’re are more advanced, trump human rights in the same way humans don’t care about ants’ property rights in an ant hill.
Gil,
“Huh? If aliens ‘homesteaded’ it first then it’s ‘theirs’. ”
No, it’s ours we homesteaded earth first. And anyways it belongs to whoever has the muscle to take it and keep it.
If the aliens are stronger than us, it’s theirs.
If we are stronger than them, it’s ours.
Might is right ! If Aliens invaded earth, I would want to nuke them up !
pm lawrence says:
“There is a parallel here for most of Australian aboriginal land title claims.”
this is not what mabo delivered, however. your suggestion sounds far more palatable and fair-minded.
“This is disingenuous. The rest is accurate, but it only goes to saying that that expropriation, done in that way, is illegitimate and/or wasteful.”
What is disingenuous about it? My point overall is that a) first there must be proof that a given owner did actually come by their holdings illegitimately and b) that there should be some victim or near enough descendant to be compensated for expropriation to be legitimately effected, but not for the government’s benefit or to come under its ownership, but for the actual victims. I’m not clued up on the specifics in Zimbabwe, but I’m certain that at least some, if not a lot, of that land was legitimately acquired, or at least is in such a condition that neither a) nor b) obtain. One must also wonder when Mugabe and his goons will be expropriated, as they most definitely do deserve it, and unlike the case of the farmers, it’ll only be a net economic gain…
Somehow I.H. Taxes I doubt you believe a nomadic tribe could ‘homestead’ land by walking over it every now and then. By the same token ‘earthlings’ can’t claim to ‘own the Earth in its entirety’ in any collective sense via Libertarian terms.
Inquisitor, I read that as being disingenuous as you were commenting on this specific case, with all its particulars, not presenting a query about whether this case met the criteria. If you didn’t know the particulars, you should have presented it as a question, not an assertion.
Native peoples hunted and relied on the Great Plains bison for thousands of years.
They had no government papers proving ownership of the land or buffalo. The land was oft contested by warring tribes over time as well.
The USA systematically killed these animals to starve off the natives and make way for white expansion. The victims are all dead.
The tribes exploited the land and bison as if they owned them. That has to count for something in the way of property. Or are we to idealize Judge Posner’s utilitarianism and view the American expansion westward as right not might? In which case, the eradication was merely proto Kelo vs. New London. “Can’t let them injuns or working class homeowners get in the way of progress,” one might reason.
Or, the tribal folk had rights to life, liberty and property- even if they did not recognize these values in the same way as Locke etc. But neither did the Americans on their rampage west, obviously. BTW, this deontological approach would mean libertarians, with the better formulation of property, could not nuke savages merely because they are primitive. That violence would make us Randians, not libertarians.
All victims in the planned destruction of the Great Plains people are dead. But the perpetrator is not. The good ole USA is alive and well, and is up to its same evil tricks.
The USA, like the Zimbabwe regime, can still be made accountable for their crimes. Every action these criminals take violates property- and always has.
Man is tribal and avaricious, so I suspect we will always be contending over whether what is one group’s “property” is another group’s commons – not simply where it is staring us in the face like Zimbabwe, Peru, aboriginal Australians or Native Americans, but also in the case of our own federal, state and local governments, which elites/insiders often use for selfish purposes. (Which shows us that the “commons problem” is just as present for intra-group struggles as it is for inter-group conflict.)
This is in our bones, which is why life can be nasty, brutish and short, and why empires are both made and don’t seem to last so long.
Of course, we all do a better job at seeing other group’s intrusions, while ignoring or discounting the ones that benefit ourselves or our ancestors.
http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2007/12/16/bison-markets-the-tragedy-of-the-commons-and-the-indian-war.aspx.
All that aside, it does seem rather clear that this latest action by Zimbabwe insiders is one that is not only extra-legal, even in Zimbabwe, but will further undermine the economy and food supply.
One question: when does a situtation like this warrant us permitting/encouraging our own governments to intervene? It seems that a modest use of force a decade or so ago could have avoided untold misery and destruction of wealth.
Tokyo Tom,
Alas, your link does not have the blog! I went to your archives and it only goes as far back to your ‘Herman Goering and Anthropogenic Global Warming’ comments.
Unless I missed something…
Tokyo Tom,
False alarm. I got there. This time I went to your Mises homepage first, “TT’s Lost In Tokyo” , http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom, then onto archives.
Reading article now. Cheers.
‘A modest use of force’, ‘might is right’… Am I on the right blog?
Tokyo Tom,
It is sad that Dr. Hill, working for PERC no less, did not address the Native issue. Great letter by you to Dr. Hill btw. Here is an excerpt from your blog:
“P.J. Hill is right to say that the near-extirpation of the American bison was not a pure “tragedy of the commons”, because what occurred was not simply the replacement of a wild, open-access ecosystem with “more productive” individual cattle ranches, farms, towns and railroads inextricably tied to developed markets, but just as much the usual tragedy when an indigenous people with community-property systems encounter a more numerous and more technologically advanced society – namely, the prompt swamping of the native community-property system and outright theft.”
“Once one accepts P.J. Hill’s premise that the Great Plains rightfully belonged to the white newcomers, then his conclusions naturally and logically follow. But one is not seeing history clearly if a cold analysis does not also consider the the broader clash of peoples, which the Indians were fated to lose (a la Jared Diamond’s “Guns, Germs and Steel”). ”
“More than a little disturbingly, Hill’s references to “people”, “rational individuals” and “entrepreneurs” are references only to the white newcomers, and not those who were dispossessed. Rather startlingly, one can get a clearer picture of how many in the much more powerful white culture contemporaneously viewed the subjugation and removal of the American Indian from what had once been their domain by simply replacing Hill’s references to “bison” in the quoted paragraphs with “Indians”. ”
“I do not mean to attribute such a view to Dr. Hill, but I do think that his failure to consider the issue of a clash of owners is a fatal flaw in his dispassionate academic analysis.]”
One question: when does a situtation like this warrant us permitting/encouraging our own governments to intervene?
A fair question, but the answer is pretty simple: never. If government has any legitimate purpose, it is the protection of the individual rights of its citizens, period. Having government interfere in the affairs of another nation is completely illegitimate unless the other nation has violated the rights of the first nations’s citizens (such as by unprovoked attack) And then, of course, it’s a matter of purusing proper justice, not an excuse to control the offending nation. This is what’s wrong with much of American foreign policy.
This does not mean that individuals or groups of individuals can’t do something, though. There are other options available.
Reason, glad you liked my post.
The problem with the link was simply that somehow a final period got caught up in it. You could get to the page by deleting the period from what shows up in the address bar and hitting return.
For those interested, here it is again, without a period:
http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2007/12/16/bison-markets-the-tragedy-of-the-commons-and-the-indian-war.aspx
TT
Land is a little tricky issue. Huge value in the land comes from externality. Governments build road and land price increase. So, unlike income, governments have a stronger case to tax land, (but not seize it)
However the president can take a more moderate approach by slowly rising land tax like George Henry.
Why do white people still stay there anyway? I would have taken a hike. I think they should count as refugees and be accepted in Europe or something.
I would just recommend all income tax to be turned into land tax and we won’t have mortgage economic crisis like what we have now. Investors will invest something besides real estates and we won’t have over supply of real estates like what we do now.
Real source of all economic crisis are over production of what’s not needed and under production of what’s needed.
For that we need to properly align humans’ interest to productivity. That includes maintaining the trust of those who are productive that they will be rewarded for their productivity. That includes redressing pass wrong.
If I were the president, I would demand 10-20% of the value of the land payable within 20 years if there are traces foul play 300 years ago. Then I would move on.
But then, presidents often do extreme stuffs to gain popularity.
Comments on this entry are closed.