Please consider just how racist such a statement is towards black people!
You're suggesting that black people cannot be successful without aggressive state intervention.
Truth is that the black middle class would've been much bigger if there was more freedom in the market.
‘Lex Libertas will therefore intensify its international advocacy. We will continue engaging stakeholders within and outside of South Africa. These include policy institutions, media organisations, civil-society partners and foreign governments who are willing to listen and contribute to a freer, safer, more prosperous South Africa. And when we do so, we will now also explain that senior members of the South African political establishment are openly discussing prosecution, restrictions and even citizenship-related measures against those who challenge their version of events internationally.’
Lex Libertas also rejected the claim that such advocacy is inherently hostile to South Africa.
‘The political establishment is not South Africa. Revealing verifiable facts, criticising those who exercise political power, and garnering support for solutions is nowhere near treason, and exposing government failure is not an attack on the country, but an attempt to save it from destructive forces.’
‘If the government wants the international criticism to stop, there is a much simpler solution than threatening its critics: address the problems.’
‘We will not be intimidated into silence. If anything, these threats confirm why the work must continue — and why it must now be expanded.’
- Lex Libertas is a South Africa-based think tank and advocacy group working towards a viable political order for the peoples of South Africa, based on the principles of freedom, decentralisationand self-governance.
Statement issued by:
Dr Ernst Roets
Executive Director
Lex Libertas
Chatting to a friend yesterday and we got talking about all the taxes you now pay which didn’t exist in 1996.
I wonder how much the “cost of living crisis” is actually just taxes which accomplish nothing but making life more expensive.
James, I’m going to engage you in good faith like I assume you did me.
In my view there are 2 components here.
The first is strategy which was what the post you’re responding to refers. If you don’t like crazy let’s go with at best misguided - unless Ryan Coetzee is advising you (and in many instances he is) no strategic person thinks pushing a potentially controversial law prior to an election is good politics. I’m not stating something odd here, this is good political practice globally. I acknowledge that those who proposed the by-law may not have seen the potential for controversy here but once it was clear that there was the correct PR approach would have been to say “we acknowledge that there are some objections to the proposed pet by-law and we are going to withdraw the proposal for review”. Then you actually review the by-law OR you lie (as is commonplace in politics the DA included) and you reintroduce the proposal once you win as many seats in the most important local government elections in history.
The second component is the law itself. The “tweaks” you refer to include potential warrantless search and seizure of property, a compulsory permit for every single living pet in the city, a ban on pigs as pets, a potential ban on beekeeping, a ban on rabbits as pets unless onerous requirements are followed, a limitation on the number of dogs one may own etc. These are just some of the tyrannical edicts contained in a by-law you are referring to as “improved”. The idea that this law existed prior including any of its mandates does not change the fundamentals that this is bad policy which should be and if challenged likely will be ruled unconstitutional.
Allow me to address your final shouted comment regarding how good government should work. A good government is one that gets out of the way and allows its citizens to live their lives with the least hindrance and difficulty, not one which throws obstacles in the way of normal individuals. The French call this État libéral and it’s what Helen Zille would call classically liberal. The idea that millions of law abiding pet owners should register their animals, be told what they may do on their own private property, and be subject to the prospect of warrantless search and seizure despite having been model citizens and pet owners is asinine to the entire liberal project. Yes, we expect the State to combat animal abuse and noise complaints and whatever other issues arise within the ambit of pet ownership - do it without criminalizing millions of people and removing their individual rights.
I’m pretty tired of trying to show people that this is a scam which has nothing to do with the price of oil. Guess it’s just another psyop I’ll have to wait out until a majority spots the con and then we can go back to normal.
Something is at war with us, “us” being regular citizens who want things to work and to be left alone. We’re slow to react because we think in terms of nations. Our enemies are mafias that wear our governments like a cloak to defeat our eyes, and fly our flags to disarm our minds
The following three facts are all true: (1) The great majority of farm murder victims have been white historically. (2) This violence, at its peak, resembled a sustained insurgency (not a genocide.) (3) The numbers of whites killed in farm attacks last year - under the glare @elonmusk and Donald Trump have placed on the issue - fell to a thirty six year low.
Emma Powell is targeted by the ANC for exposing government failures abroad, sparking fears of rising authoritarianism and the silencing of dissent in SA. https://t.co/1Du58gh6yN
Just a reminder how deep rooted ANC political-criminality is, and how far back it stretches. The ANC's paramilitaries propelled it to power, and their pound of flesh was the right to act with impunity. All state institutions that stood in their way - from murder and robbery units to the Scorpions - had to be dismantled.