[OptionX]

Well, by your own analogy. If both you and the robber have been dead for 300+ years would it make sense to make the robbers family pay your descendants for it? Keep in mind none of the people had contact with anyone remotely involved with the original robbery or had any way to influence it or impact it. Should the sons pay for the sins of the fathers? Pretty sure I could find someone in your ancestral line that commit a crime, can I convict you for it?

So, yeah, the merits are kinda low to.

[throwaway535]

Great discussion, let's continue.

So my dad goes and steals your dad's land. He give me the land as his son. I split it in half and give half to a friend of mine. The investigation occurs and determine this land was stolen and should be returned. I don't think the argument of, "sorry won't return it because I didn't steal it, my dad did" holds much water. Nor the argument of, "nope I won't return it because a friend of mine that has nothing to do with the theft is benefiting from it" holds much water either as reasons for your family to not get their land returned.

And related, possession of stolen goods is a fairly common legal concept. Regardless of penalty, at minimum once discovered the goods are returned, even if they'd previously be sold or given to someone else.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possession_of_stolen_goods#Uni...

[ericb]

Sure, except randomly distribute the goods, and then forcefully extract payback from many who were never involved, and many who fought to prevent the theft, and now you're getting closer.

Will there later be reparations for the reparations taken now from uninvolved parties since the point of reparations is that stealing labor and wealth is wrong and must be corrected via payment in later generations? If we take from them we're perpetuating the same sort of theft? I agree if we were omniscient it would be "right," but we're far far from that.

Also, let's say there's a reparation payment, but it doesn't rectify inequality, because there are more systemic problems at play, like local tax revenue funding local schools, so poor towns have poor schools. After "reparations," you don't think voters will think "we paid reparations, stop complaining."

If the purpose is "righting a wrong" I think the tool is too blunt and will create many more wrongs.

If the purpose is to "fix inequality", I think it won't address the underlying structural problems, but will "check the box" and absolve responsibilities.

[OptionX]

Slavery only counts as stolen good if you still consider black people property :)

[throwaway535]

Your comment is incorrect. It was their wages that were stolen that we're discussing.

[OptionX]

This might come as a surprise to you, but being a slave is not in fact a job. If there were any wages to be stolen in the first place they wouldn't be slaves. But considering how many times you've been wrong and are just moving the goalpost to keep arguing and are behind a throwaway I assume at this point your just trying to waste time and lowkey troll.

[bsanr2]

1) Slavery ended 150 years ago, not 300.

2) Second and third-generation descendents of slaves are still alive. In other words, people who conceivably would have benefited directly from their grandparents or great-grandparents receiving substantial reparations.

3) Reparations have been called for for more recent attacks on Black American rights and economic wellbeing; discriminatory and destructive public policy that dates back decades but that also goes up to, at least, the predatory lending practices backed by the government in the run-up to the 2008 financial crisis, which saw black-owned wealth in America cut in half.