just picked this up in the news
Harare to evict 4 000 black farmers
The Zimbabwe government on Thursday said it will evict about 4 000 black farmers who illegally occupied commercial farms and conservancies in the southern Masvingo province. The latest announcement represents a major policy U-turn by the Harare authorities.

Farms subsequently to be taken over by whom?? Surely not the original (white?) owners...
- mike

No they are going to amalgamate all the 4000 farms into one big state owned nut farm.

i almost wish that i could understand how this mentality work. the whole uncle bob, hitler, etc. mentality is so foreign to my mind that i just can't imagine how anyone can treat humanity this way. I guess I'm maybe glad that i can't

quote:

Originally posted by mho:
Farms subsequently to be taken over by whom?? Surely not the original (white?) owners...
- mike

Perhaps to some of Bobby's supporters that still don't own a farm

quote:

Originally posted by butchloc:
i almost wish that i could understand how this mentality work. the whole uncle bob, hitler, etc. mentality is so foreign to my mind that i just can't imagine how anyone can treat humanity this way. I guess I'm maybe glad that i can't

I can't think that way because, well, I just can't think that way!

Trying to understand much of the politics in many places in Africa could make a fairly intelligent man into a blithering idiot.

Through out the history of man this sort of behavior has been the norm. Only after the enlightenment in western Europe and primarly England and then The wonderous transformation that occured in the US with the American Revolution did personal property rights come to being. The whole concept is very very fragile and I am afraid short lived The great saddness is that even we have lost sight of this and every day give up more and more of our rights here.

There probably are very very few people in Africa that would have any idea what you even mean by the phase personal property rights. With out that concept there is no hope so you just have to let Africa be Africa. Go there, hunt, enjoy yourself and try not to worry.

Ernest

Even China has started adding private property rights to their constitution -- in part because they were finding it more difficult to attract international capital without some guarantee of their value.

But Zim already evicted poor people from shantytowns. Uncle Bob is willing to confiscate from anybody to give to his cronies.

Dan

quote:

Originally posted by els:
Through out the history of man this sort of behavior has been the norm. Only after the enlightenment in western Europe and primarly England and then The wonderous transformation that occured in the US with the American Revolution did personal property rights come to being. The whole concept is very very fragile and I am afraid short lived The great saddness is that even we have lost sight of this and every day give up more and more of our rights here.

Very true. It's easy to get into the mindset that the life and rights we enjoy now in the U.S. have always been there, but it just isn't so, and it still isn't so in many parts of the world. The time we're living in is just a blip on the timeline of the human race. Life has sucked for many before us, and it will suck for many to come after us, just when I don't know. Personal freedom is a radical concept in the history of the world, and it continues to be in many parts.

Personal rights are sort of new -- but the issue of property rights began to become more important when European Kings had to borrow money from commoners. The exchange of stocks in trade companies pushed it further. Some of the companies that colonized what became the US also offered opportunities for settlers to obtain property in exchange for labor, immigration, and investment. So even when these colonies were being chartered, well before the enlightenment, there were forces in motion that led up to the movement.

On the other hand, confiscation of properties by a ruler, as is happening in Zimbabwe, tend to demonstrate that a significant portion of the wealth is not simply the farm (or, more specifically, its land), but it is also the expertise and productivity of the people holding and running the farm. When gov'ts take property, the value of the property tends to be lost...

I suspect that, if this is a blip, the loss of private property rights is going to be accompanied by a significant loss of total global wealth, as well.

Dan

I was raised in Mozambique, lived there all my youth and I keep returning there due to personal and professional reasons, so I'm not an occasional visitor.
The point with Africa is mainly due to economical reasons and also due to the eternal “quest for power†issue. Don't forget that, for instance, the minimum wage in Mozambique is less than 45.00 Euro (about USD 56.00) and that a frozen chicken costs around 2.00 Euro (2.50 USD) at the supermarket, a liter of fuel costs around 0.80 Euro (1.00 USD), not speaking about an average meal at a restaurant that costs around 7.00 Euro (8.79 USD)...
So, corruption strives and discrepancies are chocking, with the very rich (minority) living a good life and the very poor (majority) trying to survive.
Also and IMHO, the Western countries have their big share of responsibility on the overall African (bad) situation, with all economical support that has been given to African rulers, without proper control and/or auditing.
On the other hand, as we all saw in Zimbabwe and we are starting to see again in neighbor countries, it's much easier to grab something that is already built and productive, use it's resources to the end and than let it lay and cry for external/foreign/Western help. Zimbabwe was one of top agricultural producers (corn, tobacco, beef) in the whole of Africa and now survives from foreign help, has a galloping 3-digit inflation rate and there are no signs of changing.
I point you to a very interesting document that deals exactly with this question of “Foreign help vs. corruptionâ€: http://www.cis.org.au/IssueAnalysis/ia67/IA67.pdf

Pleandro -- I think you're right on the money for Africa. I tend to think Zim is one of the saddest examples -- the gov't there is directly taking away from their best producers -- killing the goose laying the golden eggs -- and from their poorest and most helpless people. I can only hope that respect for private property, the right to work for a living (not to say someone owes everyone a job, but that the gov't won't choose who gets to work or who gets to enjoy an opportunity) and other rights which the US has a tradition of protecting (sort of, well, some of the time, and sometimes more than others throughout its history).

Even so, on a worldwide basis, I think either these rights to be protected, or else the world will become much poorer -- and I hold Zim up as a prime example of the impact of that corruption.

But then, I'm repeating myself.

It is interesting to see that the corruption index chart (perceived corruption) rates China as becoming more corrupt. I think the article calls it correctly that some of that may simply be due to the opening of the system to public scrutiny, and that recent reforms actually represent improvements. It was over this time period that Hu came to power, and they formulated a new constitution that included more property rights. Their huge urban infrastructure growth has been powered in part by emigration of rural folks (not entirely legally according to China's policies) to the cities looking for work. One corrupt practice had been for developers to hire these people and then not pay them. Once a building is completed, the company that did the development disappears (they are incorporated only for the building -- who is going to hold whom accountable if the building falls down?), and there's no way to get them to pay. However, their gov't is allowing lawsuits brought on behalf of these "illegal" workers for their payment, and their law says they are entitled to their pay. Reforms are making it possible to sue physicians for malpractice (which didn't exist before). The kind of economic hardships that drove so many rural folks to the cities are promoting much unrest -- which has always promoted reform in the "countryside" (as they call it). Riots and civil unrest have been growing in part because urban economic opportunities have not made it to the countryside, and partly because the scale of corruption of local governors is stupendous (they charge more than the regions' total production in taxes). This has been leading to executions of some corrupt officials. One of the nations with the largest investment in mainland China has been Taiwan. The sense of re-unification got sand in the gears when the outgoing regime left behind a hardliner in charge of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. He installed policies that provoked riots in Hong Kong. The Taiwanese watched this with great interest, considering they, too, could end up like Hong Kong. The Mainland Gov't was stuck with this guy -- they could not allow themselves to be seen giving in to the Hong Kong protesters... but as quickly as they could do so in a "seemly" manner, the got that governor out of there. This did not come without Taiwanese calls for protections of their democratic rights -- which provoked sabre rattling from the mainland gov't. Other issues they're facing have to do with polution, etc... in many ways, they seem to be in the process of getting dragged into a more rights-oriented society: they have a tiger by the tail. Point: I'm surprised in a way that the perception is that China has become more corrupt...

On the other hand, China is looking for Oil -- and will deal with anybody who has any hint of having it. They have also supported massively corrupt regimes -- such as Robert Mugabe's regime. In some ways, they've made the same mistakes that other economically huge nations have -- including the US. Some of the perception is that the US is exporting its polution to nations either too poor or too unsophisticated to defend themselves against this practice. Now China is getting more sophisticated -- and may start to import its own polution... Maybe Mugabe will take it?

Dan