Those *dangerous* Korean War relics

"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 in message
...
You need to learn how to read English. I said they didn't work for it AND
they didn't deserve it. I didn't say they didn't deserve it BECAUSE they
hadn't worked for it. And does not imply either connection or causality.
I can say you are ugly and stupid, but that doesn't mean you are ugly
because your are stupid or are stupid because you are ugly.

Sure, but people don't ordinarily recite strings of random facts that have
no intended connection to one another or to the overall point being made. In
the "stupid and ugly" example, both observations would be part of the
overall compliment you were trying to pay me.

"The descendants didn't work for it" has no evident connection to your
overall point *unless* you were implying that that's a reason they don't
deserve it. By comparison, notice how odd it would be if you'd said instead
"They're from the planet Earth AND they didn't deserve it". Even though the
first clause is obviously true, it would be a nonsensical thing to say in
this context, precisely because of its unconnectedness to the discussion. So
if the only way to construe your actual remark as non-nonsensical is to
assume that you were suggesting a connection, then that becomes the most
reasonable way to interpret your remark.

But as much as I enjoy trading English lessons, it really doesn't matter
because (regardless of what you may have been implying initially) we're now
in agreement that not working for it has no bearing on the deservedness of
inheritance here.

I don't think it is morally right to burden people TODAY for the sins of
their ancestors. If it is discovered that your grandfather murdered
someone, should be put you in jail for it?

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.

Well, I didn't say either of the above.

Actually, you just did. You made an analogy with *punishment* (jail) for
your grandfather's crime, whereas no one in the reparations debate is saying
that punishment is a valid rationale for reparations. Crucially, punishment
is something that's imposed on someone *for the purpose of* disadvantaging
that person (which may in turn be a sub-goal of some other purpose, such as
deterrence or vengeance).

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).

Sorry, I don't believe in this either, even though I know it happens in
todays legal system.

Ok, but even if you disagree with the principle of inheritance as our legal
system actually applies it, do you acknowledge that if that actual legal
standard were applied in the same way to slave-descendants' inheritance,
then the question of how their ancestors might otherwise have spent the
stolen wealth would be considered irrelevant?

--Gary

Gary Drescher wrote:

But as much as I enjoy trading English lessons, it really doesn't matter
because (regardless of what you may have been implying initially) we're now
in agreement that not working for it has no bearing on the deservedness of
inheritance here.

Right, because inheritance isn't the issue. The issue most raise is
"compensation for the sins of the fathers." I'm simply against that
concept for a number of reasons. This is what is fundamentally behind
the problems in the middle east. I think bringing that concept to
America is simply stupid and will cause untold harm to race relations
going forward.



Actually, you just did. You made an analogy with *punishment* (jail) for
your grandfather's crime, whereas no one in the reparations debate is saying
that punishment is a valid rationale for reparations. Crucially, punishment
is something that's imposed on someone *for the purpose of* disadvantaging
that person (which may in turn be a sub-goal of some other purpose, such as
deterrence or vengeance).

Punishment is almost entirely the rationale for reparations, whether it
is stated explicitly or not. The honest folks admit this, the
disingenuous don't.

I say, crap happened and crap will happen. Get over it and stop trying
to find someone to blame or someone to punish. That is a good part of
what is wrong with our country and our legal system today. Nothing is
anyone's fault and every bad thing that happens must be blamed on
someone and someone made to pay. It is ridiculous.


Matt

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Punishment is almost entirely the rationale for reparations, whether it is
stated explicitly or not. The honest folks admit this, the disingenuous
don't.

That's both ad hominen (it's about the merits of the speakers rather than
about the merits of their stated ideas) and entirely unsupported by any
evidence that you've offered.

You're proclaiming (without offering any evidence) that "Hey, they say X
(nonpunitive rationale) but they must really mean Y (punitive
rationale)"--where (conveniently enough for your position) it just so
happens that Y is totally silly (as both sides in fact agree), and thus much
easier to refute than X.

--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