|
|
|
|
|
|
by throwaway535
2020 days ago
|
|
|
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... |
|
|
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.