🚀 go-pugleaf

On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 10:26:40 GMT, "sinister" <sinister@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

><royls@telus.net> wrote in message news:4165afff.17748290@news.telus.net...
>> On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 14:16:42 GMT, "sinister" <sinister@nospam.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>In case you're not familiar with it, LVT proponents wouldn't necessarily
>>>advocate breaking up large estates and then making land grants (though 
>>>Latin
>>>America might be so screwed up that that might be a necessary initial 
>>>step).
>>
>> It's not necessary, unless the large landowners are using their wealth
>> and power to control the political process, have land reform advocates
>> assassinated, etc.
>
>Right.
>
>My impression is that at least in Brazil they *are* controlling the 
>political process, unfortunately.  IIRC Chico Mendez had something to do 
>with confronting the landholding class, and he was murdered.  And (IIRC) no 
>one was really charged.

Yes.  It's not unusual for large landowners to do away with land
reform advocates, one way or another.  The big landowners of France's
ancien regime sealed their own fate when they forced out Jacques
Turgot by fomenting phony food riots and lobbying the queen to get him
dismissed.  The trumped up impeachment of (and bizarre physical attack
in parliament on) South Korean president Roh was probably orchestrated
by large landowning interests to scotch any attempt to use land rent
recovery as a source of government revenue, which Roh had apparently
been considering.

-- Roy L