Philosophy Now Forum

I am uncertain if this topic will interest the forum much. But since it has been in the news recently I thought it might. I came across this video which seemed to me to present a quite reasonable conversation on the topic of the threat of expropriation.

The reports that have come to me about SA generally give a picture of a country approaching collapse (in some areas) but even these reports I have not been able to verify to my satisfaction.

https://www.thesouthafrican.com/news/

what is "good" information? the fact that the political roles have been reversed?

-Imp

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon May 19, 2025 2:09 pm I am uncertain if this topic will interest the forum much. But since it has been in the news recently I thought it might. I came across this video which seemed to me to present a quite reasonable conversation on the topic of the threat of expropriation.

The reports that have come to me about SA generally give a picture of a country approaching collapse (in some areas) but even these reports I have not been able to verify to my satisfaction.

Is the country collapsing? How long is a piece of string? Service delivery across the public sector is worse than ever. Sanitation, education and healthcare are non-existent in the rural parts of the country. Durban and Johannesburg's infrastructure is slowly and visibly aging with water and power outages now being weekly occurrences.

Western Cape is the only province thriving- which is why the middle and upper classes from around the country are moving here.
And why the ANC is desperately trying to undermine all local governance.

The current clowns in political power are doing everything to subvert property ownership via "legal" means. They are succeeding.
The inside joke is that there are two message.
For international audiences: the law will be used sparingly to grease the wheels of transformation on land deals that have stagnated for decades.
For insiders: the law will be used to take back what was taken at the end of a gun.

In-office ministers are unashamedly spreading the latter message across political rallies and university halls where young, impressionable minds will listen.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon May 19, 2025 7:24 pm

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon May 19, 2025 2:09 pm I am uncertain if this topic will interest the forum much. But since it has been in the news recently I thought it might. I came across this video which seemed to me to present a quite reasonable conversation on the topic of the threat of expropriation.

The reports that have come to me about SA generally give a picture of a country approaching collapse (in some areas) but even these reports I have not been able to verify to my satisfaction.

Is the country collapsing? How long is a piece of string? Service delivery across the public sector is worse than ever. Sanitation, education and healthcare are non-existent in the rural parts of the country. Durban and Johannesburg's infrastructure is slowly and visibly aging with water and power outages now being weekly occurrences.

Western Cape is the only province thriving- which is why the middle and upper classes from around the country are moving here.
And why the ANC is desperately trying to undermine all local governance.

The current clowns in political power are doing everything to subvert property ownership via "legal" means. They are succeeding.
The inside joke is that there are two message.
For international audiences: the law will be used sparingly to grease the wheels of transformation on land deals that have stagnated for decades.
For insiders: the law will be used to take back what was taken at the end of a gun.

In-office ministers are unashamedly spreading the latter message across political rallies and university halls where young, impressionable minds will listen.

Skepdick, are you suggesting that in-office ministers should be ashamed to advocate for taking back land that was originally seized "at the end of a gun"?

Because from your tone, it sounds like you're outraged not by the original violent expropriation, but by the possibility of addressing it—even through legal means. If ministers are unashamedly stating historical facts and pushing for redress, should the shame not lie with those who benefitted from the original injustice, rather than those seeking to correct it?

You seem to highlight the deterioration of state services and governance failures—fair criticisms. But tying that to outrage over land restitution suggests you’re more disturbed by the rhetoric of justice than by the centuries-long injustice that made it necessary in the first place.

So again: are you objecting to how it's being said, or that it's being said at all?

BigMike wrote: ↑Mon May 19, 2025 8:38 pm Skepdick, are you suggesting that in-office ministers should be ashamed to advocate for taking back land that was originally seized "at the end of a gun"?

It seems to me — if I understand what you are saying — that your position is quite binary: the Afrikaners “stole” the land 400 years ago. And now, if the modern state choses to, they are in the right to take back lands (and I assume anything else since, by definition, white Afrikaners have no rights.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon May 19, 2025 7:24 pm Is the country collapsing? How long is a piece of string? Service delivery across the public sector is worse than ever. Sanitation, education and healthcare are non-existent in the rural parts of the country. Durban and Johannesburg's infrastructure is slowly and visibly aging with water and power outages now being weekly occurrences.

Skepdick, do you have experience in South Africa on the ground? Or on what is the outlook you presented based?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon May 19, 2025 8:53 pm

BigMike wrote: ↑Mon May 19, 2025 8:38 pm Skepdick, are you suggesting that in-office ministers should be ashamed to advocate for taking back land that was originally seized "at the end of a gun"?

It seems to me — if I understand what you are saying — that your position is quite binary: the Afrikaners “stole” the land 400 years ago. And now, if the modern state choses to, they are in the right to take back lands (and I assume anything else since, by definition, white Afrikaners have no rights.

Alexis, that’s a mischaracterization of what I said.

I didn’t say Afrikaners have no rights, nor did I endorse a binary framing. What I questioned was Skepdick’s apparent disapproval of ministers stating—openly and unashamedly—that land taken by force might be subject to legal redress. That’s not the same as advocating a free-for-all or denying anyone’s rights.

If a wrong was committed—land seized by force—and if the current government is proposing legal mechanisms to address it, the real discussion should be about whether those mechanisms are just, effective, and respectful of everyone's rights today, not whether merely talking about restitution is shameful.

You jumped from historical injustice to a claim that someone is suggesting modern Afrikaners “have no rights.” That’s not just a stretch—it’s the kind of rhetorical escalation that shuts down meaningful discussion. No one benefits from that. Let’s stay grounded in what’s actually being said.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon May 19, 2025 2:09 pm I am uncertain if this topic will interest the forum much. But since it has been in the news recently I thought it might. I came across this video which seemed to me to present a quite reasonable conversation on the topic of the threat of expropriation.

The reports that have come to me about SA generally give a picture of a country approaching collapse (in some areas) but even these reports I have not been able to verify to my satisfaction.

Hard to get good information about anything politically contentious these days. Maybe "these days" is an unecessary qualifier, perhaps it was never easy.

I have a south african coworker who confirms to me that many white south african farmers got brutalized and had their farms stolen, and the govnernment did nothing about it despite knowing it had happened. I had heard about this stuff before, but I thought it was just hysterical people taking maybe 1 or 2 cases and blowing it out of proportion. And hell, it still might be, it's hard to tell. But it's clear there's something deeply wrong in south africa right now.

BigMike wrote: ↑Mon May 19, 2025 8:38 pm Skepdick, are you suggesting that in-office ministers should be ashamed to advocate for taking back land that was originally seized "at the end of a gun"?

Because from your tone, it sounds like you're outraged not by the original violent expropriation, but by the possibility of addressing it—even through legal means. If ministers are unashamedly stating historical facts and pushing for redress, should the shame not lie with those who benefitted from the original injustice, rather than those seeking to correct it?

You seem to highlight the deterioration of state services and governance failures—fair criticisms. But tying that to outrage over land restitution suggests you’re more disturbed by the rhetoric of justice than by the centuries-long injustice that made it necessary in the first place.

So again: are you objecting to how it's being said, or that it's being said at all?

By your tone you sound like an idiot. No wait. Not by your tone - by our previous interactions.

The only rightful owners of land in South Africa (on a long enough historical timeline) are the Khoisan and they experienced land dispossession and displacement way before the Europeans came to the party. Surely you've heard of the bantu expansion?

You can rest assured that none of the expropriations are going back to them or benefiting them in any way. Tribalism is alive and well dressed up in modern politics.

Any expropriation carried "legally" (yet without compensation) is still being carried out at the end of a barrel of a gun.

As always. The guns of the contemporary political elite.

Then there's the fact that giving land to the majority-demographic is only half the equation.
They lack the resources, credit lines or acumen necessary to succeed.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon May 19, 2025 9:00 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon May 19, 2025 7:24 pm Is the country collapsing? How long is a piece of string? Service delivery across the public sector is worse than ever. Sanitation, education and healthcare are non-existent in the rural parts of the country. Durban and Johannesburg's infrastructure is slowly and visibly aging with water and power outages now being weekly occurrences.

Skepdick, do you have experience in South Africa on the ground? Or on what is the outlook you presented based?

I've lived here since 1996.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon May 19, 2025 9:36 pm

BigMike wrote: ↑Mon May 19, 2025 8:38 pm Skepdick, are you suggesting that in-office ministers should be ashamed to advocate for taking back land that was originally seized "at the end of a gun"?

Because from your tone, it sounds like you're outraged not by the original violent expropriation, but by the possibility of addressing it—even through legal means. If ministers are unashamedly stating historical facts and pushing for redress, should the shame not lie with those who benefitted from the original injustice, rather than those seeking to correct it?

You seem to highlight the deterioration of state services and governance failures—fair criticisms. But tying that to outrage over land restitution suggests you’re more disturbed by the rhetoric of justice than by the centuries-long injustice that made it necessary in the first place.

So again: are you objecting to how it's being said, or that it's being said at all?

By your tone you sound like an idiot. No wait. Not by your tone - by our previous interactions.

The only rightful owners of land in South Africa (on a long enough historical timeline) are the Khoisan. You can rest assured that none of the expropriations are going back to them or benefiting them in any way. Tribalism is alive and well dressed up in modern politics.

Any expropriation carried "legally" (yet without compensation) is still being carried out at the end of a barrel of a gun.

As always. The guns of the contemporary political elite.

Then there's the fact that giving land to the majority-demographic is only half the equation.
They lack the resources, credit lines or acumen necessary to succeed.

Skepdick, thanks for clarifying—though the insult was unnecessary and does more to undermine your position than strengthen it.

You're absolutely right that the Khoisan were the original inhabitants. If your argument is that any current redistribution that doesn’t benefit them is flawed or hypocritical, that’s a fair critique worth exploring. But that’s not the argument you were originally making. You criticized ministers for "unashamedly" promoting expropriation—and that’s what I addressed.

Now you’ve shifted to claiming that land redistribution today is just another form of tribalism, weaponized by political elites. Fine. Let’s talk about that. But let’s not pretend the core issue—the injustice of colonial land theft—evaporates because the current solutions are flawed or politically manipulated.

Yes, expropriation without compensation is coercive by nature. But so was the original taking. You don't get to condemn one without at least acknowledging the force behind the other. And pointing out that beneficiaries of redistribution may lack support, credit, or training is again a valid policy critique—one that supports better implementation, not abandonment of the principle.

So let me ask plainly: if you agree that the land was taken unjustly, do you support any meaningful redress? Or is the imperfection of current efforts your reason for dismissing restitution altogether?

BigMike wrote: ↑Mon May 19, 2025 10:04 pm Skepdick, thanks for clarifying—though the insult was unnecessary and does more to undermine your position than strengthen it.

Position? Oh... you are posturing again.

BigMike wrote: ↑Mon May 19, 2025 10:04 pm You're absolutely right that the Khoisan were the original inhabitants. If your argument is that any current redistribution that doesn’t benefit them is flawed or hypocritical, that’s a fair critique worth exploring. But that’s not the argument you were originally making. You criticized ministers for "unashamedly" promoting expropriation—and that’s what I addressed.

Now you’ve shifted to claiming that land redistribution today is just another form of tribalism, weaponized by political elites. Fine. Let’s talk about that. But let’s not pretend the core issue—the injustice of colonial land theft—evaporates because the current solutions are flawed or politically manipulated.

Yes, expropriation without compensation is coercive by nature. But so was the original taking. You don't get to condemn one without at least acknowledging the force behind the other. And pointing out that beneficiaries of redistribution may lack support, credit, or training is again a valid policy critique—one that supports better implementation, not abandonment of the principle.

So let me ask plainly: if you agree that the land was taken unjustly, do you support any meaningful redress? Or is the imperfection of current efforts your reason for dismissing restitution altogether?

Spare me the geo-political nonsense, dude. You can't be stupid enough to believe that politics is anything other than legislated will-imposition?

Is stealing stolen land wrong? It doesn't really matter. The thieves from which the stolen land was stolen want to steal it back. Three wrongs (dressed up as restitution) don't make a right. But maybe a 4th; or a 5th re-distribution will settle the score.

Did you know that while South African land reform (and in general - ANC politics) is all about Black Economic Empowerment the Khoisan aren't even considered black. They are classified as "coloured" e.g mixed race.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/10/19/so ... nd-reform/

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon May 19, 2025 10:15 pm

BigMike wrote: ↑Mon May 19, 2025 10:04 pm Skepdick, thanks for clarifying—though the insult was unnecessary and does more to undermine your position than strengthen it.

Position? Oh... you are posturing again.

BigMike wrote: ↑Mon May 19, 2025 10:04 pm You're absolutely right that the Khoisan were the original inhabitants. If your argument is that any current redistribution that doesn’t benefit them is flawed or hypocritical, that’s a fair critique worth exploring. But that’s not the argument you were originally making. You criticized ministers for "unashamedly" promoting expropriation—and that’s what I addressed.

Now you’ve shifted to claiming that land redistribution today is just another form of tribalism, weaponized by political elites. Fine. Let’s talk about that. But let’s not pretend the core issue—the injustice of colonial land theft—evaporates because the current solutions are flawed or politically manipulated.

Yes, expropriation without compensation is coercive by nature. But so was the original taking. You don't get to condemn one without at least acknowledging the force behind the other. And pointing out that beneficiaries of redistribution may lack support, credit, or training is again a valid policy critique—one that supports better implementation, not abandonment of the principle.

So let me ask plainly: if you agree that the land was taken unjustly, do you support any meaningful redress? Or is the imperfection of current efforts your reason for dismissing restitution altogether?

Spare me the political nonsense, dude. You can't be stupid enough to believe that politics is anything other than legislated will-imposition?

Is stealing stolen land wrong? It doesn't really matter. The thieves from which the stolen land was stolen want to steal it back. Three wrongs (dressed up as restitution) don't make a right. But maybe a 4th; or a 5th re-distribution will settle the score.

Did you know that while South African land reform (and in general - ANC politics) is all about Black Economic Empowerment the Khoisan aren't even considered black. They are classified as "coloured" e.g mixed race.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/10/19/so ... nd-reform/

Skepdick, you're clearly disillusioned with the whole system—and I get it. When you say politics is just "legislated will-imposition," you're not wrong in the sense that power often masks itself in procedure. But your cynicism, while understandable, doesn't relieve us of the responsibility to ask: what should be done, if anything, when historical theft defines the present?

You’ve now repeated that the Khoisan were the original inhabitants and that current policies ignore them. I agree, and that’s a serious failure. But raising that fact doesn’t negate all forms of restitution—it just demands better ones. If we don’t like the current approach, let’s demand one that honors history more accurately, not retreat into fatalism or mock anyone attempting redress as “thieves stealing stolen land.”

You asked rhetorically, “Is stealing stolen land wrong?” Maybe the better question is: what does justice look like when we inherit a landscape built entirely on injustice? If politics is broken and tribalism is still driving policy, then the answer isn’t to scoff and disengage—it’s to insist that truth and fairness be central in whatever comes next.

So I’ll ask again—not as posturing, but as a moral question: If restitution is so far mishandled, what would a just alternative look like? Or do you believe the injustice should simply be allowed to calcify because every attempt to address it is flawed?

BigMike wrote: ↑Mon May 19, 2025 9:01 pm What I questioned was Skepdick’s apparent disapproval of ministers stating—openly and unashamedly—that land taken by force might be subject to legal redress. That’s not the same as advocating a free-for-all or denying anyone’s rights.

It would seem to me that land seizures, under any legal paradigm, must be condemned and not merely “disapproved”. SA did turn the state over to democratic control by assenting to allow elections. That required remarkable political will and at least a good amount of good faith.

The argument that land settled by Afrikaners 400 years ago is now to be regarded as stolen, and repossessed for that reason, is plainly illegal and certainly unconstitutional. That argument would correspond to a US government official arguing for someone with native blood is justified in seizing parts of Manhattan. It is pretty absurd.

So in a sense you propose that those farmers deserve to have their lands taken away. And lack the right to defend their tenancy.

The issue (as I am beginning to understand it) is not that white farmers have lands, but rather that the government lacks the capability or the will to turn over land it owns to black farmers (by granting titles) who do not have capital and (enough) experience to become successful.

That is what I took away from the video I posted in any case.

Repossessing land owned by Whites will do nothing for black farmers trying to get started.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Mon May 19, 2025 9:38 pm I've lived here since 1996.

Ah ok. I have somewhat distant relatives there but lost touch with them. I cannot find a lead to locate them. SA is one place I have desired to visit for a group of reasons.