South Africa Slips Further Into the Void

Hiding From the Real Problems

It looks like South Africa has decided to become a republic of the banana variety.  It's Parliament has voted to steal land from white farmers without compensation.  This represents the worst kind of xenophobic racism.  

South Africa's parliament has voted in favour of a motion that will begin the process of amending the country's Constitution to allow for the confiscation of white-owned land without compensation.

The motion was brought by Julius Malema, leader of the radical Marxist opposition party the Economic Freedom Fighters, and passed overwhelmingly by 241 votes to 83 against. The only parties who did not support the motion were the Democratic Alliance, Freedom Front Plus, Cope and the African Christian Democratic Party.

It was amended but supported by the ruling African National Congress and new president Cyril Ramaphosa, who made land expropriation a key pillar of his policy platform after taking over from ousted PM Jacob Zuma earlier this month.  "The time for reconciliation is over. Now is the time for justice," Malema was quoted by News24 as telling parliament. "We must ensure that we restore the dignity of our people without compensating the criminals who stole our land."

According to Bloomberg, a 2017 government audit found white people owned 72 per cent of farmland in South Africa.  ANC deputy chief whip Dorries Eunice Dlakude said the party "recognises that the current policy instruments, including the willing-buyer willing-seller policy and other provisions of Section 25 of the Constitution may be hindering effective land reform".  ANC rural affairs minister Gugile Nkwinti added: "The ANC unequivocally supports the principle of land expropriation without compensation. There is no doubt about it, land shall be expropriated without compensation."

Thandeka Mbabama from the Democatic Alliance party, which opposed the motion, said there was a need to right the wrongs of the past but expropriation "cannot be part of the solution".  "By arguing for expropriation without compensation, the ANC has been gifted the perfect scapegoat to explain away its own failure," she said in a statement.  "Making this argument lets the ANC off the hook on the real impediments — corruption, bad policy and chronic underfunding. Expropriation without compensation would severely undermine the national economy, only hurting poor black people even further."  [NZ Herald]

There have been plenty of instances where governments have destroyed agricultural industries.  Former "break-basket" nations have ended up with famines.  Zimbabwe is a classic of the genre.

The Ghosts of Ahab and Jezebel Have Returned

Tyrannical Powers

Asset forfeiture has rapidly devolved into a form of state tyranny.  In New Zealand the practice of seizing assets from criminals is still bound fairly narrowly by law.  But in the United States, the seizing of assets from innocent citizens has rapidly become an ignoble, gross injustice.  

The struggle to outlaw the practice continues.  Eventually it will be overthrown, we trust.  Opposition includes people from all sides of the political spectrum.  It is a practice so immoral, so unjust, so venal and so tyrannical that it deserves the moniker "Ahabism" after the notorious King Ahab of Israel and his Phoenician queen, Jezebel.

Kevin Williamson updates us on the current state of Ahabism in the United States.

Civil Asset Forfeiture: Where Due Process Goes to Die

Police can take your money or property and keep it, even if no charges are filed.

Kevin D. Williamson
National Review Online

Clarence Thomas is famously taciturn on the bench. But his few words carry a great deal of weight.

Though the matter has not yet come before the Supreme Court, Justice Thomas is very much at the center of a federal case with a name that sounds like it ought to have come from a William Gaddis novel: United States v. Seventeen Thousand Nine Hundred Dollars in United States Currency. The case has the potential to help rein in one of the most abused powers enjoyed by American government: asset forfeiture.

The case involves a New York couple, Angela Rodriguez and Joyce Copeland, who lost the above-mentioned $17,900 to police in a case in which no charges were ever filed against them. They sued for recovery of their money, and — incredibly — a federal court found that they lacked standing to sue for possession of their own assets. The D.C. Circuit Court sees things differently and has ruled in favor of allowing Rodriguez and Copeland to at least have their day in court and attempt to reclaim their money.
Current asset-forfeiture practice, like much that is wrong with U.S. law enforcement, has its roots in the so-called war on drugs.

Thou Shalt Not Steal--Simple Really

Crowbars or Congressmen

Douglas Wilson
Blog&Mablog

If we want justice and equity in human relationships, we have to begin by acknowledging that God owns everything. One of the reasons our culture had for adopting atheistic evolution as our foundational creed is to get around this most inconvenient reality. In a world of purposeless chance, there is stuff lying around, and those who evolve out of other stuff first and find the stuff lying around can provisionally call it “theirs,” unless and until a stronger predator comes and takes it. In modern economics, we call that stronger predator “the majority.

But in a creationist ethic, God created man and woman, and gave them the responsibility for being stewards of the earth. So that we would know what our particular stations were in this broad task of stewardship, God established private ownership, answerable to Him. Just as the commandment not to commit adultery presupposes the institution of marriage, so also the commandment not to steal presupposes the institution of private property. This is why every form of socialism is evil.

The command is not “thou shalt not steal, unless you really need it.” It is not “thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.” It is not “thou shalt not steal, unless it is for the common good.” It is simply this: thou shalt not steal (Ex. 20:15).

Citizens Are Not to Be Trusted

We Are the Government.  We Know Best

The (radical) Left tell us that all property is theft.  So, the most perfect and just regime is one which owns all property, so that none may be guilty of theft.

It's true that left leaning political parties aren't prepared to go that far.  However, they will insist that when the state strips property from citizens it always leads to better, more just social outcomes.  Expropriating property from citizens via taxation and using or distributing it as the regime sees fit leads to far better results--or so we are told.  The State is neutral and disinterested; the individual or private property owner looks only to his own interests.

Take education and schooling, for example.  It is an almost universal maxim in the West these days that the regime will develop and run education systems superior to citizen efforts.  The Left gets all misty eyed and fervid over education being so important that it cannot be left to private citizens to invest in and produce a superior education service.  Education, we are told, is so important that self-interested citizens ought not to be allowed anywhere near it.

This grand idea starts to break down as soon as one remembers that the regime is not a machine.

Don't Cry for Me, Venezuela

No Toilet Paper or Repentance

The Atlantic has published a lengthy article on what is going down in Venezuela.  The country is on its knees: it is figuratively bleeding from self-inflicted gunshot wounds.  But it's half a world away.  Why should we care?  

In a general sense, we Christians care because this entire world belongs to the Lord, the Messiah Who has bought it all with His redemptive sacrifice and proved it by His resurrection from the dead.  When we Christians speak of Christ the King, we do not speak figuratively.  He literally is King of all kings.

Amongst many things, it pleases our King to illustrate vividly for all who care to look what happens when petty rebels take over a country and seek to rule by sin's wisdom.  Such a country always enters into a self-inflicted judgement.  Venezuela has become a proverb, a warning to all Unbelief and rebellion against the King of the whole earth: "if you walk in rebellion and Unbelief, you will eat its bitter fruit."

The people of Venezuela decided a couple of decades ago to elect a Strong Man, one Hugo Chavez.  Hugo promised much, but all of it involved theft.

The State as Oppressor and Thief

The Christian Temptation Towards Socialism

Pope Francis’s papacy has revived attention to an enduring, misguided strain of religious-tainted socialism.

By Marc Fitch   
The Federalist

The last temptation of Christ may not have occurred in the desert when Satan confronted Jesus. In the biblical book of Matthew, Christ goes alone into the desert and fasts for 40 days. While he is starving, the Devil confronts and tempts him: “If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.” Christ answers, “Man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.”

The Christian church, both Catholic and Protestant, has faced a similar temptation to turn stone into bread in the form of socialism. Many seem surprised by Pope Francis’s criticism of capitalism. Modern liberals trying to push for a more socialist agenda in Europe, South America, and the United States have used his statements as fodder. While it is commonly assumed that Christianity would be opposed to socialism because of its historic opposition to communism, the two are not the same.

Russian and Chinese communism did not allow for religious belief and practice, but the economic system of socialism itself has no such restrictions, and has been embraced by many Christian leaders and sects throughout the development of the modern industrial society. In an effort to create a Christian society, believers have lent support to and embraced socialism to the point of revolutionary action as a way to create heaven on Earth—bread out of stone.

What do Hacking and Torture Have in Common?

Conflicts of Interest

The moral vacuity of Unbelief has been on display in recent days.  Firstly, the prurient frenzied delight over the hacking of Sony digital property, the breathless headlines about who said what to whom (to sell more newspapers and subscriptions) and the joy in seeing senior executives at Sony shown up to be nasty little people.  Hollywood and the gossip columnists (virtually the entire media set) are all atwitter.  Yet, in the same breath said media will condemn hacking as theft and an egregious crime.  Recall the moral outrage and self-righteous fulminations of the media and the Chattering Classes at the phone hacking undertaken by Rupert Murdoch's News of the World. But that was "them" not "us".  It makes all the moral difference in the world, apparently.

We have seen the same phenomenon in New Zealand.  One self-righteous moral pygmy receives stolen e-mails from notorious "right-wing" blogger, Cameron Slater and the media engage in an orgy of prurient, sensationalist twittering.  Quietly ignored is the fact they were profiting from the proceeds of a crime.  Ah, well, everyone was doing it, so we could not afford to ignore it.  The end (making a dirty profits) justified the means (exploiting stolen property).

Doubtless the media would be sniffy nosed at an individual hacking into, say, hospital patient records in the attempt to profit from their theft.  But in their own case and when it concerns their own book, they grandly ignore their complicity in crime because they tell themselves are operating "in the public interest".  Self-righteous, hypocritical mendacity. 

But crimes being committed "in the public interest" are pretty acceptable these days.

What's a Few Falsehoods Between Friends

Lying For the Cause

Victor Hanson has written a piece in National Review Online in which he discusses the proclivity of modern Western society towards untruth and lying.  To be sure, Islamic societies have endorsed and encouraged lying for centuries.  In Islam it is acceptable to lie to one's wife and to one's enemies and to kaffirs when one is engaged in jihad or holy war (which is pretty much all the time, since jihad occurs whenever someone says it does).  In Islamic ethics, the end (enforced submission to Allah) justifies the means.

But traditionally the Christian West has insisted that truth-telling is an absolute moral requirement.  The Ninth Commandment enjoins: "Thou shalt not bear false witness".  But as Western nations have rejected the Lord Jesus Christ and officially and unofficially replaced Him with secularism and atheism, every one of the commandments have been rejected and dismissed.  But this begs a question: if God is not feared and His absolute commandments are not revered, why should anyone bother telling the truth about anything.  There would be nothing wrong with lying and deceit.  It may be inconvenient, but would not be immoral or unethical.

The Commentariat would doubtless splutter about the damage to commerce and property if one were permitted to lie.

Ideological Curios, Part III

The Spirit of Ahab still Lives

Israel is a divisive topic.  For many--particularly those on the Left, in the Commentariat, and amongst the chattering classes--it represents implacable evil, whilst Islamic Palestinians represent unimpeachable goodness.  For some Christians influenced by Dispensational biblical theology, Israel represents unimpeachable goodness, whilst those who oppose Israel--on any count--represent forces opposed to God.

Naturally, the world is neither that simple, nor binary. Christians run the risk of thinking in a binary fashion about the modern nation state of Israel when they read Biblical texts outside of the context of the "broad-brush" narrative of the Bible.

To cut to the chase, the modern nation state of Israel is not a fulfilment of biblical promises to the ancient Jewish people.  It is a creation of Britain, the United States, and the UN.  Is this a problem?  Not necessarily.  There have been plenty of such artificially created nations during the hey-day of imperialism, as well as before and after.

However, the artificiality of the origins of a nation should not be an argument to obliterate it.  In the end, nation states exist and should be reckoned with accordingly.

Douglas Wilson's Letter from Moscow

Withershins

Douglas Wilson

Blog and Mablog

October 2, 2014

C.S. Lewis observes somewhere that there are two different motivations for spreading the political power as thinly as possible. The first is the motive of the sunny democrat, one who believes that man is the repository of wisdom, and that before we do anything of a civic nature, we ought to check in with as many of those wisdom nodes out there as we can.

The second motivation is driven by a Christian view of man, in which the radical nature of sin is acknowledged, and we confess ourselves unwilling to deposit too much power in any one individual or institution. And why? Because Lord Acton knew his onions, and aptly said that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

This adage does not apply to God, obviously, who is untempted and uncorrupted by His omnipotence. It does apply,  however, to all those little creatures who are still affected by the aboriginal temptation, which is “to be as God.”

The former view is trying share the power with all those out there who are worthy of it, and the latter view is trying to keep the power from accumulating in any one place. The former view is pagan, and the latter is Christian. In this latter view, given the nature of the case, we are not trying to spread as much power as possible across the entire population, but rather trying to take essential precautions by limiting the exercise of any essential power by spreading as far as we reasonably can, separating the powers and checking the balances.

Douglas Wilson's Letter From Moscow

Property and Love for the Poor

Douglas Wilson

Blog and Mablog

September 23, 2014

I have written a great deal on how the framework provided by biblical ethics honors and preserves the institution of private property. The argument is not complex. Just as “thou shalt not commit adultery” presupposes and honors the institution of marriage, so also “thou shalt not steal” presupposes and honors the institution of private property.

The private property that is honored is that which comes to a man through the ordinary processes. “Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope” (1 Cor. 9:10). God is the one who gives us the power to get wealth (Dt. 8:18), and it comes up to us from the ground. It does not float down upon us from the state.

Douglas Wilson's Letter From Moscow

Stuff Inviolate

Douglas Wilson

Blog and Mablog

Sept 13, 2014

I have been arguing that property rights are human rights. I have been insisting that it is not possible to love your neighbor without respecting his stuff. I have been saying that the commandment thou shalt not steal presupposes the institution of private property in just the same way that the prohibition of adultery presupposes marriage. And in the same way, I cannot honor the command not to covet my neighbor’s wife if I cannot come up with a definition of “wife.”

But there has been some surprising pushback on this simple idea, so let us dig a little deeper.

Douglas Wilson's Letter From Moscow

Parable of the Ten Investment Portfolios

Posted on Wednesday, January 29, 2014  

By Douglas Wilson 

Blog and Mablog

 

Given the emphasis that the president placed on “income inequality” in his 2014 SOTU speech, I thought it necessary for us to review a few things from the Bible. We have wandered so far off from the teaching of Jesus that some of this pandering seems compelling and/or compassionate to us. It is actually evil.

Allow me to say a few things in this second paragraph that will seem outrageous to some, while doing so in the hope that you will then allow me to explain myself. I have argued repeatedly that free grace creates free men, and that free men are the only ones who can create free markets. Free markets are God’s design for us. If you don’t love the idea of free markets, you don’t love Jesus rightly. Christian discipleship requires an understanding of, and deep love for, economic liberty.

So why invoke Jesus by name? Why bring Him into it?

It's Not Fair

Economic Ignorance and Moral Turpitude

In his book, Fairness and Freedom, David Fischer makes some observations which represent a touchstone for truth and error in economics.  Fischer has written a historical comparison of New Zealand and the United States.  The latter nation has focused over time upon political and social freedom (from government rules, regulations, and controls) whilst New Zealand has been shaped by notions of fairness (which implies egalitarian distribution at least of opportunity, if not actual goods). 

We will endeavour to critique Fischer's book in a future post, but for the moment consider this partly insightful, yet misguided quotation:

Don't Steal--The Government Does Not Like Competition

It's Redistribution, But Not As We Had Thought of It

Quantitative easing has been a massive thievery of ordinary citizens and a redistribution of wealth to the monied classed operating in the financial sector.  A Mckinsey report documents how this has played out in the UK (and in the US, and Europe in general).

Meaningless Morass, Part II

Holy Discrimination

In Part I of "Meaningless Morass" we argued that the concept of social justice is meaningless because it can be expanded to embrace anything which a human being thinks is good.  Social justice, once the "good" is identified is a social or political order which delivers the good, whatever it may be.

Take, as an example, the evil of abortion.  Since some believe that a woman's "right" to her own body is axiomatic and ultimate, the rights of the unborn child are subordinate (at best), non-existent, at worst (the unborn is not human, therefore by definition cannot have human rights).  Therefore, abortion is a good thing, preserving a woman's control (or, property right) over her own body.  Consequently the cause of social justice must provide free, accessible abortion.  If not, injustice stalks the land. 

In addition, modern Nazi organizations assert they are committed to social justice for white people, which means getting for white people what they are due.  What white people are due, presumably, is their rightful position of racial supremacy.  Modern communist parties also claim they are committed to achieving social justice.  Naturally, the notion of what is just is worlds apart from Nazi ideology.  But both alike claim they represent the cause of social justice.

Christians are starting to get swept up in this errant nonsense.

Villainous Hero

How the Mighty Have Fallen

When Hugo Chavez died, the chattering classes and the Commentariat went into official mourning.  A saint had departed from the earth.  A true hero of the people, the poor, the underprivileged had shuffled off this mortal coil.  A political giant had left us.  But his legacy remained--an inspiration to all.

Pieces written by professional mourners appeared throughout the Western press and electronic media.  Chavez proudly announced himself to be a socialist and that socialism was the only way forward.  All of this was a bit too much from the more substantial outlets.  This from his obit in The Guardian:

Leviathan Stirs

Tithing in the West

There is no such thing as private property  in the West any longer.  Not really.  There is only property given to you by society for a time, which may be expropriated at will now, or some time in the future.  In the secular Marxian west the State is the fundamental owner, the real owner of everything.  All private property, so called, is only owned in a form of leasehold, via the condescension of the State. 

Of course it has to be this way.  The reason the state's power to expropriate, seize, and control the property of its citizens is that it has replaced God Himself.  In the biblical world-view, only God is the ultimate owner of all property.  He is the creator and sustainer of everything.  The cattle on a thousand hills belong to Him.  Men only possess property as a leaseholder in God's estate.  But--and here is the point--what God has granted to a man, his family, a business corporation, or to a charitable trust let no man (or government) expropriate or steal.  The wrath of the eternal, ultimate Owner will be kindled.  In the Christian worldview, then, private property rights are sacred and real.  What God has granted, let not another man or human institution expropriate.

Douglas Wilson's Letter From America

Our Little Piggy Hearts 

Money, Love, Desire - The Good of Affluence
Written by Douglas Wilson
Wednesday, 05 December 2012

As we are now in the midst of farcical fiscal cliff negotiations, with the Republicans being lame and the Democrats being eeeevil, I thought I should handle this as a teachable moment. We should take these teachable moments whenever they arise, for there will be fewer and fewer of them as the clouds of economic lunacy settle in.

The president insists on raising the tax rates on the richest among us, saying that they can afford to "pay a little more." This is objectionable, on the surface, in two ways. Let me just mention those briefly, and then move on to a third place where it is doing real damage.

The Government's Non-Compete Clause

Adulterating the Currency

There is an old bumper sticker that reads, "Don't steal!  The Government doesn't like competition."  Folk do not often contemplate that an entire government could be devoted to theft.  Yet why should it surprise us?  Sin and evil continually breaks forth out of the human heart; it is desperately sick (Jeremiah 17:9).  Christ alone can cleanse it, making men new--regenerating them. 

When unregenerated men gain control of a polity it is the most natural thing in the world for their addiction to sin to be woven through government policies, laws, and regulations.  Why, then, ought it to surprise us that governments should do evil?  Why, then, should we be shocked when governments steal?

The most common form of government theft is adulterating the currency.