3 ms·

I would say that the reparations are not morally reprehensible, as they are paying for damage already done. Unless of course, a company makes a decision that ha

I would say that the reparations are not morally reprehensible, as they are paying for damage already done. Unless of course, a company makes a decision that harms people, animals accounting for future reparations. In the case of the dividend to pollute, you force people to choose between money/power/economy and them/their children having cancers and birth defects. This is perhaps where the analogy breaks; ignoring DNA and credit, data may lack cross generational effects.

gnode 8y ago
> Unless of course, a company makes a decision that harms people, animals accounting for future reparations. To clarify, I was suggesting this case; that a company deliberately starts or continues a business which physiologically harms people, whereby these people are compensated as an ongoing cost of doing business, as opposed to a fine for desisted wrongdoing. That is, I think, a truer analogy to what is being proposed with this data dividend. Granted, it breaks down at congenital disorders.