property rights constitution
In South Africa, these are rights that are currently under threat. Land expropriation has many South Africans worried.
Constitution 101
Numerous organisations have spoken out against this, but few as strongly as the Institute of Race Relations. The advent of land expropriation will see a severe decline in foreign direct investment, as well as the possibility of financial emigration from wealthy taxpayers.
Terence Corrigan For more than a decade the Institute of Race Relations has fought a dogged defence of property rights in South Africa. Through interminable public debates, across iterations of expropriation and land governance legislation, and through a succession of policy proposals, we have warned against the threat of state encroachment and the ideological infrastructure supporting it.
Over the past three years, this has taken the form of an aggressive drive to amend Section 25 of the Constitution and to introduce a new Expropriation Act. Both of these are now well-advanced and sit before Parliament. The threats these present have been well canvassed. They will explicitly empower the state — in certain circumstances, but a potentially wide range — to seize property without paying the erstwhile owner for it. More than that, a careful reading of the Expropriation Bill suggests that market value compensation is likely to be a rarity. The process is weighted in favour of the state and stands to exert a great deal of pressure on those in danger of losing their property to settle. Property rights constitution will this be the new normal? Are we looking at a future in which the government has an established ideological framework with readily available tools, and has declared itself willing and eager to use them? The key concept here is custodianship. One can interpret this as being a situation in which source of a certain asset property rights constitution simply declared impossible by law.
Where individuals or private associations might once have been in possession of something, their ownership is extinguished. Interestingly, the state does not technically own it either.
Life, Liberty and Property
The property rights constitution would prompt a claim for compensation, the second would not. That the state would take on most of the functions of ownership under constitutiln arrangement think of the issuing of licences to exploit minerals or use water resources is evidently not factored in. The ruling, however, did limit itself to the facts before the Court at the time. But it clearly made an impression and showed the potential scope for state action.
The idea of a mass custodial taking of land has never been disavowed, and has cropped up regularly.
Aside from calls for property rights constitution along these lines from political figures, it has made its way into prospective legislation policy documents. It also recommended a land tax, so that presumably after having lost ownership, any further occupation and use would be subject to regular payments to the state. It would be accompanied by a land law, which he likened to the National Water Act 36 of and the Mineral and Petroleum Development Resources Act 28 of Both of these implemented the custodial principles https://digitales.com.au/blog/wp-content/custom/african-slaves-during-the-nineteenth-century/greek-mythology-timeless-tales-of-gods-and-heroes.php their respective fields.
Land redistribution, for example, has for years been premised on not extending ownership to its beneficiaries.]
One thought on “Property rights constitution”