Those *dangerous* Korean War relics

Skywise wrote:
"Gary Drescher" wrote in
:

"Skywise" wrote in message
...
"Gary Drescher" wrote in
:

Who is talking about *punitive* reparations?

I was, from the very first post I made in this thread. It
now appears our whole argument is based on your misreading
of my post.

No, it's apparently based on your own misreading of your own post. Nothing
in your original post referred to *punitive* reparations.

Why the **** else would there be reparations if not to punish?

To compensate.

Specific to this issue, slavery in America pre Civil War, what
tangible property is to be returned? What other reason would
there be (re slavery) for white people alive today to give
*anything* to black people alive today? The only thing taken
away from the blacks was their freedom.

Frederick Douglass had most of his wages taken aeway from him
when he was a slave. His descendants could probably establish
a sound estimate of just how much money that was.

--

FF

wrote:

Frederick Douglass had most of his wages taken aeway from him
when he was a slave. His descendants could probably establish
a sound estimate of just how much money that was.

But how do you give it back to Frederick? His descendants didn't work
for it and don't deserve it.

Matt

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
news
wrote:

Frederick Douglass had most of his wages taken aeway from him
when he was a slave. His descendants could probably establish
a sound estimate of just how much money that was.

But how do you give it back to Frederick? His descendants didn't work for
it and don't deserve it.

Do you believe categorically that people do not deserve inheritances? If
that's not your belief, then why don't you believe that Douglass's
descendants deserve to inherit the wealth that Douglass was morally entitled
to have and to bequeath?

--Gary

Gary Drescher wrote:

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
news
wrote:


Frederick Douglass had most of his wages taken aeway from him
when he was a slave. His descendants could probably establish
a sound estimate of just how much money that was.

But how do you give it back to Frederick? His descendants didn't work for
it and don't deserve it.


Do you believe categorically that people do not deserve inheritances? If
that's not your belief, then why don't you believe that Douglass's
descendants deserve to inherit the wealth that Douglass was morally entitled
to have and to bequeath?

I'm not at all against inheritances. The problem here is that you
simply have no way to know what his estate would have been. He may well
have spent his kids inheritance while he was still alive (that is my
plan!). And you probably can't be be assured at this point who all of
his ancestors are. This whole issue of trying to correct 150 year old
wrongs is simply stupid. I can think of a whole lot of other wrongs
commited over the years against probably every group and faction
currently in the USA. Trying to right all of those wrongs would tie up
the courts for decades and only further transfer wealth to the lawyers.

It is simply a stupid idea being put forth for purely political reasons.
THAT is why I am opposed to it.


Matt

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Gary Drescher wrote:

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
news
wrote:
Frederick Douglass had most of his wages taken aeway from him
when he was a slave. His descendants could probably establish
a sound estimate of just how much money that was.

But how do you give it back to Frederick? His descendants didn't work
for it and don't deserve it.

Do you believe categorically that people do not deserve inheritances? If
that's not your belief, then why don't you believe that Douglass's
descendants deserve to inherit the wealth that Douglass was morally
entitled to have and to bequeath?

I'm not at all against inheritances. The problem here is that you simply
have no way to know what his estate would have been.

That's quite different from the statement you made above: the only reason
you gave for his descendents not to deserve the inheritance is that they
didn't work for it. *That* rationale, if valid, would apply to *all*
inheritances.

But now you're saying that that *doesn't* disqualify them from being
entitled to the stolen inheritance wealth--instead, you're now saying the
problem is that the amount is hard to calculate. Do you agree that *if* the
amount could be readily calculated, his descendents would be morally
entitled to it? (If not, why not?)

I agree that there are practical difficulties in estimating the amount of
stolen wealth, and in identifying those who would have stood to inherit it.
Possibly, those difficulties make the whole idea unfeasible. That's not
clear to me (in part because I think we can, at the very least, come up with
a much better estimate than $0, which is effectively the estimate that's
being used now).

So my point is not necessarily to advocate reparations, but rather just to
point out that the issue is more complex than is acknowledged by those who
pretend that it's about punishment or who say that "they didn't work for
their inheritance" is a decisive consideration.

He may well have spent his kids inheritance while he was still alive

Legally and morally, that's *completely* irrelevant to his descendants'
deservedness of the inheritance. Since he did not in fact spend the wealth
otherwise (because it was wrongfully withheld from him), the wealth belongs
to his estate and thus to his descendants, *regardless* of what he might
have done with it if given the opportunity.

Analogously, if your parents were deceased and you were suing to recover
some money that someone stiffed them for or stole from them, the
(all-but-unanswerable) hypothetical question of whether they'd have spent it
(instead of having it to bequeath) would have *no bearing whatsoever* on the
case. If your parents had been entitled to recover the money, then *you* are
now entitled to recover it after their death (unless perhaps they explicitly
disinherited you or something; but whether they might have spent it makes no
difference at all).

--Gary

Matt Whiting wrote:
wrote:

Frederick Douglass had most of his wages taken aeway from him
when he was a slave. His descendants could probably establish
a sound estimate of just how much money that was.

But how do you give it back to Frederick? His descendants didn't work
for it and don't deserve it.


THAT, is another question entirely.

ISTR reading back in the 1970s of a family who proved an anscestor
did not receive his full pay from his service in the Continental Army
during the Revolutionary War. HIs family received back pay with
interest.

Now, that is not the same thing, but it does show that it is possible
for
a persons to receive payment for debts owed to their ancestors.
Adjudicating a tort retroactively is another matter. Torts usually
have a statute of limitations, but the clock doesn't always
start ticking when the tort was comitted.

I'm personally not in favor of reparations for long-dead actions
but mostly becuase they are impractical, not because they are
unjust.

Another Poster brought up the issue Native American claims. It
is close to thirty years now (I think) that the Lakota Sioux won
a case against the US government and were awarded an enormous
sum for the land taken in violation of a treaty.

However, they had not sued for money, they sued for ownership
of the wrongfully converted real estate. To take that property
from the current private owners to recomsate the Lakot Sioux
would have done an injustice to the current owneres who bought
it in good faith.

Regardless, the plaintiffs refused on principle to take the money.
IMHO, this was a mistake, they could have used that money for
seed money for real estate speculation and by now would
probably have bought back most of their land.

--

FF

wrote in message
ups.com...
ISTR reading back in the 1970s of a family who proved an anscestor
did not receive his full pay from his service in the Continental Army
during the Revolutionary War. HIs family received back pay with
interest.

Now, that is not the same thing, but it does show that it is possible
for
a persons to receive payment for debts owed to their ancestors.
Adjudicating a tort retroactively is another matter. Torts usually
have a statute of limitations, but the clock doesn't always
start ticking when the tort was comitted.

I'm personally not in favor of reparations for long-dead actions
but mostly becuase they are impractical, not because they are
unjust.

Another Poster brought up the issue Native American claims. It
is close to thirty years now (I think) that the Lakota Sioux won
a case against the US government and were awarded an enormous
sum for the land taken in violation of a treaty.

However, they had not sued for money, they sued for ownership
of the wrongfully converted real estate. To take that property
from the current private owners to recomsate the Lakot Sioux
would have done an injustice to the current owneres who bought
it in good faith.

Who would pay the reparations? All your examples include awards from a
governing body (backpay from the army, violating a government treaty). I
don't believe the U.S. Government ever owned any slaves.

Allen

"Allen" wrote in message
.net...
Who would pay the reparations? All your examples include awards from a
governing body (backpay from the army, violating a government treaty). I
don't believe the U.S. Government ever owned any slaves.

Whether it did or not, it erected the legal framework that made such
"ownership" possible, and is thus morally responsible.

--Gary

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
. ..
"Allen" wrote in message
.net...
Who would pay the reparations? All your examples include awards from a
governing body (backpay from the army, violating a government treaty). I
don't believe the U.S. Government ever owned any slaves.

Whether it did or not, it erected the legal framework that made such
"ownership" possible, and is thus morally responsible.

--Gary

How do you and I (we are the "it" you are referring to and are thus morally
responsible) pay then? How is the pay determined? To whom is the payment
made?

Allen

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
. ..

Whether it did or not, it erected the legal framework that made such
"ownership" possible, and is thus morally responsible.


That's not correct. Slavery preceded the establishment of the US.