Chavez and land reform

Victor the Apostate Windbag has some sensible thoughts on Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez: "Chavez is no socialist, his land reform strategy… may have provoked the ire of the US and even absent landholders in the UK, but has, if we are honest, more in common with the land reform of Lincoln, than that of Lenin…"

He may, possibly, be going a bit far with "quite objectively, there is no better government on the Earth today than that of Hugo Chavez Frias". But the land reform thing is an extremely annoying point, and one well worth dwelling on.

Robert Mugabe’s land reforms in Zimbabwe are bad, not because they involve expropriating land from foreigners who stole it in the first place [*], but because they involve taking the country’s most productive land and giving it to corrupt murdering thugs to fuck up (and because said corrupt murdering thugs frequently murder the relevant foreigners).

Crooks like Mugabe have given a bad name to land reform. But it’s an essential step if we want to see market economies in the developing world: effectively, we need to replace the feudal system that prevailed in colonial Africa and South America with one based on individual property rights for the people.

[*] I find it hard to get terribly excised about what Robert Mugabe has done to wealthy Europeans, who either have or are eligible for developed-world passports anyway. The reason he’s one of the worse men alive is because of the appalling suffering he’s inflicted on vast numbers of poor Zimbabweans, who don’t have the same opportunity to flee.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized by John B. Bookmark the permalink.

4 thoughts on “Chavez and land reform

  1. > foreigners who stole it in the first place

    No, foreigners whose ancestors stole it in the first place. Do you think we should prosecute the children or grandchildren of thieves, regardless of whether they commit crimes?

    > The reason he’s one of the worse men alive is because of the appalling suffering he’s inflicted on vast numbers of poor Zimbabweans, who don’t have the same opportunity to flee.

    So inflicting suffering on people who do have the opportunity to flee is not so bad, then? That’s good to know.

  2. Situation one: I torture you.
    Situation two: I give you a choice of going away or being tortured.

    Both are bad, and both imply that I’m a bad man. It would be difficult to claim with any plausibility that situation two is as bad as situation one, however.

  3. Obviously true, yes. Howevere, it was more your implication that situation two isn’t really a problem worth getting upset about that I was objecting to.

Comments are closed.