Those *dangerous* Korean War relics

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
news

Have you directly or indirectly inherited some of the wealth that the
slave owners stole from the black population? Thought so.


What wealth was stolen from the black population by the slave owners?



Ironically, the point of this subthread is that the right-wing
slavery-apologists here on r.a.p. haven't gotten over losing the Civil
War.


Right-wing slavery-apologists here on r.a.p. haven't gotten over losing the
Civil War? The Civil War ended 141 years ago. Nobody here on r.a.p. lost
it.

That's why it's ironic.

--

FF

Montblack wrote:
("Skywise" wrote)
Have you ever heard George Carlin's little piece on the F word?


http://www.erenkrantz.com/Humor/SevenDirtyWords.shtml

That's bogus man, 'tits' doesn't even belong on the list!

--

FF

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
. ..

You apparently fail to grasp the distinction between punishment (which no
one in this debate advocates) and civil reparation (returning something to
its rightful owner).


In the case of reparations for slavery, assuming the "rightful owners" were
not all dead, what is it that would be returned to them?

Money.

In a civil action if the wronged party has lost a limb, a family
member,
or property that is now unrecoverable, they receive monetary
compensation instead.

--

FF

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

...

Eminent domain has been (ab)used for that purpose
since before the Constitution was adopted. I've been
opposed to the practice since first becoming aware of
in the early 1970s. But I am not so dishonest as to
argue that it is unConstitutional, or something new.
Indeed, I am astonished that a case disputed centuries
old settled law got to the USSC

It is pretty hard to see how an arugment can be made that
a prohibiton of confiscation of property WITHOUT just compensation
does not implicitly permit confiscation WITH just compensation.


"Just compensation" is not enough. The Fifth Amendment says private
property shall not be taken FOR PUBLIC USE without just compensation.

That's a good point. Nothing in the Constitution prohibits the
confiscation of property for tranfer of ownership to another private
party. Indeed, if that is distinct from confiscation for public use
then it doesn't even require just compensation for forced private
party to private party transactions.

Historically property that was not being developed, what we now call
'greenspace' was often condemned, and confiscated then sold (perhaps
typically at public auction, but certainly not always ) to developers.
While the legal argument was that this was done for the pubic good,
to increase the tax base or employment the real reason usually was
that some infuential developer wante dthe property bur the owner didn't

want to sell, at least not for what the developer was willing to pay.

Right or wrong (personally, I deplore the practice and would
like to see it outlawed) it has been going on for as long as there
has been formal ownership of real estate. If it was the intent
of the founding fathers to outlaw the practice they should
have been more specific. I wish they had.

--

FF

wrote in message
ups.com...

Matt Whiting wrote:
Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...




just as they stole Africans to use as slaves.


Matt


Actually the Americans bought the slaves. In many cases from Africans.

I said Europeans, not Americans. The Americans may have bought them,
but they were still buying stolen (kidnapped) "goods."

I believe most of the slave traders were European, but I'm sure some
enterprising Africans got into the action as well.


In Africa the traders were mostly African. A number of Americans
sailed the 'slave triangle'. They would take slaves from Africa to
the Southern US or (maybe) the Carribean, take cotton, tobacco
or mollases to New England, and then take manufactured goods
to Africa.


So the Americans were basically the customers and the UPS of the day.

And to the parent post that said, "they were still buying stolen (kidnapped)
"goods." "Stolen" is a legal term. At the time there wasn't a law against
the slave trade so they weren't stolen they were bought and sold in
accordance with the law of the time.

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net wrote in message
...
And to the parent post that said, "they were still buying stolen
(kidnapped) "goods." "Stolen" is a legal term. At the time there wasn't a
law against the slave trade so they weren't stolen they were bought and
sold in accordance with the law of the time.

"Stolen" is a moral as well as legal term. Legalized theft can still
constitute stealing, in the moral sense.

--Gary

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...
"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net wrote in message
...
And to the parent post that said, "they were still buying stolen
(kidnapped) "goods." "Stolen" is a legal term. At the time there wasn't a
law against the slave trade so they weren't stolen they were bought and
sold in accordance with the law of the time.

"Stolen" is a moral as well as legal term. Legalized theft can still
constitute stealing, in the moral sense.


But this thread is suggesting a legal remedy. If we are going to get money
and lawyers involved we have to stick to the legal use of the term.

If we are talking about the moral issues a heart felt apology should be
enough.

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net wrote in message
...

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...
"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net wrote in message
...
And to the parent post that said, "they were still buying stolen
(kidnapped) "goods." "Stolen" is a legal term. At the time there wasn't
a law against the slave trade so they weren't stolen they were bought
and sold in accordance with the law of the time.

"Stolen" is a moral as well as legal term. Legalized theft can still
constitute stealing, in the moral sense.

But this thread is suggesting a legal remedy. If we are going to get money
and lawyers involved we have to stick to the legal use of the term.

Why? That seems like an arbitrary and unmotivated rule restricting a
discussion that involves both moral and legal issues. We should be able to
use any sense of any term we want, as long as it's clear what sense we're
using (as long as it's clear that we are not referring to a violation of the
then-current property laws).

If you prefer to use another term instead, such as "immorally taken", that's
fine. No substantive question is affected by the choice of terminology.

--Gary

wrote in news:1149696178.572144.60190
@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:


Montblack wrote:
("Skywise" wrote)
Have you ever heard George Carlin's little piece on the F word?


http://www.erenkrantz.com/Humor/SevenDirtyWords.shtml

That's bogus man, 'tits' doesn't even belong on the list!

How about the five words that can't be said on the floor
of Congress?

nipple
****
****
****
damn

Interestingly, I had a problem with a web forum a few months
back wherein I discovered that the message I was posting was
blocked because it "contains words that Congress may find
offensive". When I questioned the censorship and it was
confirmed by the board op, I then proceed to make a most
colorful post questioning the usefulness of filtering only
those five words. Of course, the message got deleted.

Truthfully, I was trying to open up the issue for discussion
and since the board op simply deleted the post, that told
me they were not interested in discussing the stupidity of
their filter system. Needless to say, I no longer post there.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

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