Elon musk and his sons

[R7ehr]

I pointed my Afrikaner co-worker to this thread. He shared the following on WhatsApp:

There was a bill passed that allows for unused farm land to be confiscated without compensation... But the likelihood of the criteria ever being met is basically zero... the whole thing was more of a political spin by the ANC.

They did in... 1950? Wasn't much of the land uninhabited, and the Boers settled it, tamed it, and turned it into farmland over a period of many years?

No, there were people before that, just as there were American Indians here before white people claimed their land. Maybe it looked "uninhabited" to white people who wanted their land ...

If I'm following this straight, "uninhabited" i.e. undeveloped native virgin grasslands and forests and jungles in the 1700's should have been never claimed or developed even though that was the way the whole world worked at the time. Because they apparently should have had the foresight to know that in a short 250 years, the world would change.

Meanwhile, 250years later, today it is acceptable to confiscated developed, but "unused" land without compensation.

What is more ethical about confiscating without payment unused land in 2025 - a time with established and defined, legal property rights - than taking undefined and undeveloped land 250 years ago, a time when the world viewed that as a pretty normal thing to do?

If we are going back to confiscating land in 2025, in order to revert to 1700's ownership, does that only apply to the African continent, or does it also apply to Ukraine? And North America?

[Robert]

I never heard of "First Things" before. Not sure what they are about. Some random website is not a real strong source.

You should read it. First Things has a long history of combining careful, intellectual conservatism and Christianity. Contributors over the years have included
Gary Bauer
William Bennett
Peter Berger
David Brooks
Avery Dulles
Peter Leithart
Mark Noll
Ross Douthat
Carl Trueman
and many others. I don't always agree (the editorial stance seems theologically blind to the distinction between influence of a society and controlling it) but it is always worth the effort. Very serious and taken seriously by many intelligent thinkers.

I only know one name on that list. Guess I am a little ignorant of intellectual conservatives.

[JohnH]

You should read up on the history of the Boers and the Cape Colony.

Perhaps we both should.

I've read a bit and I have been in South Africa, spending most of my time with white South Africans while there. People who actually had to learn this history in school. I shared some of what he had to say earlier in this thread.

The population of the entire territory of what is now South Africa in 1700 (or 1800) was estimated to be around 1 to 1.5 million people. The population is now 63 million, of which about 4.6 million is "white people". It is safe to say that most of the population of South Africa, regardless of race, descend from people who were not there in 1700.

Some of South Africa's settlement is unique in that previously difficult to inhabit places were tamed and inhabited. Some of that happened when the British decided to invade and kick out the Boers, with the Boers fleeing to less-desirable land and finding a way to live on it. It seems very strange to now claim that those people should, for some reason, have their land taken from them simply because of their race.

Do you think race should be a factor used in deciding who gets what property? I don't think it should be.

[R7ehr]

I only know one name on that list. Guess I am a little ignorant of intellectual conservatives.

Are you intelligent about little ignorant conservatives?

[Bootstrap]

Meanwhile, 300 years later, today it is acceptable to confiscated developed, but "unused" land without compensation.

No, that's not happening.

See this post:

viewtopic.php?p=264460#p264460

And this one:

viewtopic.php?p=264479#p264479

[Ken]

Do you think race should be a factor used in deciding who gets what property? I don't think it should be.

Yet until recently the entire system of land tenure in South Africa was entirely based on race. That is the original sin for which they are still coming to grips with. Theft, injustice, and racism doesn't automatically get washed away with the passage of time.

[Bootstrap]

Do you think race should be a factor used in deciding who gets what property? I don't think it should be.

Yet until recently the entire system of land tenure in South Africa was entirely based on race. That is the original sin for which they are still coming to grips with. Theft, injustice, and racism doesn't automatically get washed away with the passage of time.

And I think dealing with this now is complex.

Unlike the United States, most of the population of South Africa is still indigenous, only 8% are white. I doubt that we will see the kinds of things we saw with Rhodesia, that would be terrible. And so far, nothing has happened. I think they are trying to figure it out.

The Afrikaners I know are not scared of this, though. Jaded, perhaps. They don't see the ANC government as particularly competent, but they don't see it as scary either.

[R7ehr]

...based on race. That is the original sin...

Pointed at the term, not the poster - I always find it fascinating when I see this particular religious language/phrase being coined by the liberals who generally oppose religion. It feels fraudulent, as if they are trying to reach people (the right) where they are by speaking language that they think might resonate with the right.

[mike]

So what are you saying? Anyone who cares about their offspring's genetics is a Nazi? I think it is perfectly fine (for example) to be tested for genetic diseases to make sure before you marry someone, you won't be facing having a horrible genetic disease.

No, genetic testing is not what is at issue here. What is at issue is the idea that rhe genetically “superior “ should have the mandate to reproduce as much as possible, in any way possible to produce a superior “race.” That is national socialism.

No, it isn’t; it’s eugenics. I think we would agree Margaret Sanger was a eugenicist, but she certainly wasn’t a “national socialist” as you seem to be using the term.

The idea that those specifically with superior intellect should reproduce as much as possible seems bad to me, and if it ever becomes technically possible in a lab rather than through normal human reproduction it would be truly despicable.

The signature evil of Nazism wasn't the encouragement of the German race to reproduce as much as possible, though - it was the motivation behind it that was evil, and the far, far greater evil was the elimination of the "inferior" races and peoples. That is what I have always thought the evil of Nazism was.

Although Elon Musk is a terrible person in terms of his personal morality, I have never heard of him calling for ANY group to reproduce less, let alone be eliminated. Rather, he is constantly calling for all societies everywhere, not just any one category of intelligence or any one nation, to reverse the current trend of population decline.

[JohnH]

Do you think race should be a factor used in deciding who gets what property? I don't think it should be.

Yet until recently the entire system of land tenure in South Africa was entirely based on race. That is the original sin for which they are still coming to grips with. Theft, injustice, and racism doesn't automatically get washed away with the passage of time.

OK, so are you saying they should go back to that?

I can see plenty of farms for sale in South Africa with frankly bargain prices - fertile land, often with a fully working farm already on it for prices that you can't get a piece of swampland for where I live. Or anywhere in the U.S, for that matter.

This is about finding an excuse for confiscation, not any real desire for correcting injustices that are now in the distant past.