[potatoz2]

I don’t disagree that reparations is more than monetary, but it certainly includes monetary compensation and therefore it’s worth discussing.

The dilemma you described (using stolen goods to do otherwise good deeds) boils down to whether you want to take a utilitarian or deontological moral view. Having said that, no one (in our capitalist society, at least) would accept me stealing your car to drive patients to the hospital as OK, even if my car otherwise sits completely unused. And similarly, if I crashed your car while doing my good deed, there would be no question that I owe you a replacement.

I think the more interesting question about reparation is whether there is truly a “continuity” (of the institution, state, or country on the one hand, and of a family unit on the other). If there is, then obviously the institution owes everything needed to make you whole. If there isn’t, then they owe you the same as any other citizen.

[robertlagrant]

> I think the more interesting question about reparation is whether there is truly a “continuity” (of the institution, state, or country on the one hand, and of a family unit on the other). If there is, then obviously the institution owes everything needed to make you whole. If there isn’t, then they owe you the same as any other citizen.

Can you explain this? What is continuity in this sense, and why is it obvious that they owe everything needed to make everyone whole?