3 ms·

To make reparations (specifically of the non-voluntary sort) to one particular group is to cause harm to another group. This should be self-evident, but we can

by brbsix 10y ago

To make reparations (specifically of the non-voluntary sort) to one particular group is to cause harm to another group. This should be self-evident, but we can look at practical examples (e.g. World War I reparations which harmed both sides). It is really moral or worthwhile to open new wounds (notably to entirely innocent parties) in the present in an attempt to rectify past injustice? We don't punish the children of murderers for their parent's offenses, let alone the descendants of their neighbors.

geofft 10y ago
> We don't punish the children of murderers for their parent's offenses, let alone the descendants of their neighbors. I'm not totally sure that's true, under your definition of "punish" (or at least of "cause harm"). If a convicted murderer writes some memoirs, there are laws that prevent them from profiting off their story, and often allow the families of victims to sue for those profits. This applies even if the murderer is personally unable to use that money (due to being in prison, being on death row, etc.) and is just trying to provide for their children. If the victims' families discover a few years later that profitable memoirs were published, I believe they can still sue to recover that money, even if it means taking money out of an innocent child's college fund.
- brbsix 10y ago
  Here's a quote from the "Son of Sam law" Wikipedia page: In certain cases a Son of Sam law can be extended beyond the criminals themselves to include friends, neighbors, and family members of the lawbreaker who seek to profit by telling publishers and filmmakers of their relation to the criminal. In other cases, a person may not financially benefit from the sale of a story or any other mementos pertaining to the crime. It goes on to say: With the advent of the Internet and online sales, many Son of Sam laws are now targeting the sale of so-called "murderabilia". Few courts have yet issued opinions regarding the constitutionality of many of these new laws. Dumbfounded as I may be, you're clearly right on that.
  - geofft 10y ago
    So, although I agree that seems unjust at first glance, I think there's (at least) the following good reason for it: if there was an exemption for profits that have been transferred to a young child or other innocent relation, it would be obviously reasonable to write those memoirs and immediately assign your copyright interest to your child (or to their trust), which would defeat the whole point of the law. (It might also be reasonable to engineer some complex situation where you assign your interest to a buddy, who then helps you out; instead of going after the vague benefit you get from the buddy, the law just goes after the ill-gotten gains wherever they ended up.) To avoid that situation, the law takes the position that the benefit to your child never should have existed in the first place, and it's not a harm to them for it to disappear. Or, as a simpler example: if I rob a bank at gunpoint and then give the money to my children, the bank can recover that money despite it having passed out of my hands. We don't consider that harming the children, despite them being innocent of my crime. Even if they grew up expecting that money to be available to them for college, it is my crime and my action that made that promise to them. The money can be returned to its rightful owner, and only I am responsible for having promised money to them that I never rightfully had. The same thinking applies to reparations, although I readily concede that it's much more complicated. If A gained through what we now concede is unambiguously a violation of B's basic human rights, and A passed those gains onto their descendants, and B passed their losses onto their descendants, A's descendants unjustly have a slightly better station in life than they should, and B's a slightly worse station. (Of course, defining how much better/worse over hundreds of years is tricky, but the theoretical basis for this analysis is sound.) To improve the situation for B's descendants, even at the possible cost of worsening the situation for A's descendants, is just: as long as it does not make A's descendants any worse off than they should have been had the crime never occurred, it is not a harm to them to take away a gain they should have never had.
    - brbsix 10y ago
      > if I rob a bank at gunpoint and then give the money to my children, the bank can recover that money despite it having passed out of my hands. It would help to have an expert legal opinion, but I don't believe this is true, particularly if the sum has been spent (as any and all ill-gotten gains from slavery would be). In civil suits, you can't replevy cash as such. The question of replevin becomes moot should the item in question no longer exist as an entity, i.e. if it is destroyed, or in the case of a bag of money, for instance, if the money has been spent. For this reason, the item is normally seized by the court when the action is filed and held until the decision is reached to prevent the waste of a legal action over a nonexistent object and, further, to ensure that the item in question is not destroyed, spent, etc., during the action. [0] > To improve the situation for B's descendants, even at the possible cost of worsening the situation for A's descendants, is just: as long as it does not make A's descendants any worse off than they should have been had the crime never occurred, it is not a harm to them to take away a gain they should have never had. I find this to be a terrifying prospect, particularly if it is applied consistently (and why wouldn't it be, if it is indeed just). Great ills have (and presumably will be perpetrated) under such justifications. There are far too many to list, so here are just a few hypotheticals: Title to lands in the Middle East (is X justified to seize it from Y as if it never changed hands?). In the case of the some 16 million odd descendants of Genghis Khan, how do you even begin to undo an empire?. Did they benefit from their status or did they suffer as children borne out of rape (or whatever the case may be)? Do we also attempt to undo past injustices when they result in far greater benefit to the descendants of victims than would have been received in the absence of victimization (e.g. descendants of American slaves enjoying a significantly higher standard of living versus had they been born, or not born as the case may be, in Africa)? Many of these reparation scenarios, (specifically if they effectively "take away a gain they should have never had"), resign people to death. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replevin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replevin

by brbsix 10y ago

geofft 10y ago

> We don't punish the children of murderers for their parent's offenses, let alone the descendants of their neighbors. I'm not totally sure that's true, under your definition of "punish" (or at least of "cause harm"). If a convicted murderer writes some memoirs, there are laws that prevent them from profiting off their story, and often allow the families of victims to sue for those profits. This applies even if the murderer is personally unable to use that money (due to being in prison, being on death row, etc.) and is just trying to provide for their children. If the victims' families discover a few years later that profitable memoirs were published, I believe they can still sue to recover that money, even if it means taking money out of an innocent child's college fund.

brbsix 10y ago
Here's a quote from the "Son of Sam law" Wikipedia page: In certain cases a Son of Sam law can be extended beyond the criminals themselves to include friends, neighbors, and family members of the lawbreaker who seek to profit by telling publishers and filmmakers of their relation to the criminal. In other cases, a person may not financially benefit from the sale of a story or any other mementos pertaining to the crime. It goes on to say: With the advent of the Internet and online sales, many Son of Sam laws are now targeting the sale of so-called "murderabilia". Few courts have yet issued opinions regarding the constitutionality of many of these new laws. Dumbfounded as I may be, you're clearly right on that.
- geofft 10y ago
  So, although I agree that seems unjust at first glance, I think there's (at least) the following good reason for it: if there was an exemption for profits that have been transferred to a young child or other innocent relation, it would be obviously reasonable to write those memoirs and immediately assign your copyright interest to your child (or to their trust), which would defeat the whole point of the law. (It might also be reasonable to engineer some complex situation where you assign your interest to a buddy, who then helps you out; instead of going after the vague benefit you get from the buddy, the law just goes after the ill-gotten gains wherever they ended up.) To avoid that situation, the law takes the position that the benefit to your child never should have existed in the first place, and it's not a harm to them for it to disappear. Or, as a simpler example: if I rob a bank at gunpoint and then give the money to my children, the bank can recover that money despite it having passed out of my hands. We don't consider that harming the children, despite them being innocent of my crime. Even if they grew up expecting that money to be available to them for college, it is my crime and my action that made that promise to them. The money can be returned to its rightful owner, and only I am responsible for having promised money to them that I never rightfully had. The same thinking applies to reparations, although I readily concede that it's much more complicated. If A gained through what we now concede is unambiguously a violation of B's basic human rights, and A passed those gains onto their descendants, and B passed their losses onto their descendants, A's descendants unjustly have a slightly better station in life than they should, and B's a slightly worse station. (Of course, defining how much better/worse over hundreds of years is tricky, but the theoretical basis for this analysis is sound.) To improve the situation for B's descendants, even at the possible cost of worsening the situation for A's descendants, is just: as long as it does not make A's descendants any worse off than they should have been had the crime never occurred, it is not a harm to them to take away a gain they should have never had.
  - brbsix 10y ago
    > if I rob a bank at gunpoint and then give the money to my children, the bank can recover that money despite it having passed out of my hands. It would help to have an expert legal opinion, but I don't believe this is true, particularly if the sum has been spent (as any and all ill-gotten gains from slavery would be). In civil suits, you can't replevy cash as such. The question of replevin becomes moot should the item in question no longer exist as an entity, i.e. if it is destroyed, or in the case of a bag of money, for instance, if the money has been spent. For this reason, the item is normally seized by the court when the action is filed and held until the decision is reached to prevent the waste of a legal action over a nonexistent object and, further, to ensure that the item in question is not destroyed, spent, etc., during the action. [0] > To improve the situation for B's descendants, even at the possible cost of worsening the situation for A's descendants, is just: as long as it does not make A's descendants any worse off than they should have been had the crime never occurred, it is not a harm to them to take away a gain they should have never had. I find this to be a terrifying prospect, particularly if it is applied consistently (and why wouldn't it be, if it is indeed just). Great ills have (and presumably will be perpetrated) under such justifications. There are far too many to list, so here are just a few hypotheticals: Title to lands in the Middle East (is X justified to seize it from Y as if it never changed hands?). In the case of the some 16 million odd descendants of Genghis Khan, how do you even begin to undo an empire?. Did they benefit from their status or did they suffer as children borne out of rape (or whatever the case may be)? Do we also attempt to undo past injustices when they result in far greater benefit to the descendants of victims than would have been received in the absence of victimization (e.g. descendants of American slaves enjoying a significantly higher standard of living versus had they been born, or not born as the case may be, in Africa)? Many of these reparation scenarios, (specifically if they effectively "take away a gain they should have never had"), resign people to death. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replevin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replevin