4 ms·

Yes, having even just a starting point for numbers on this would be very helpful. Part of the issue is people won't even countenance the concept of reparations,

Yes, having even just a starting point for numbers on this would be very helpful. Part of the issue is people won't even countenance the concept of reparations, so no one gets as far as saying, well if your great grandfather was enslaved for X years under system Y, here's an estimate of the value of their labor that was stolen by that system. What are the limits? Who will be excepted? How will it be enforced? All good questions! But we can hardly answer them if we refuse to engage with the idea of reparations to begin with.

generalizations 6y ago
> But we can hardly answer them if we refuse to engage with the idea of reparations to begin with. That's because the first order of business is to demonstrate that reparations are even a good idea. Engage with those who don't like the idea, and address the concerns they raise, if you can; then deal with minutae.
- seph-reed 6y ago
  Literally paying a person for their time. If an employer was stealing money from their employees, why would you have to demonstrate they should have to pay off the debt? There is a measurable financial debt here. Also, it sets a precedent: if you care about your decedents and progeny at all, there is nothing to gain from cheating. You may benefit and die before repercussions occur, but all debts must be paid eventually. Justice is hard, but not when it comes to hours worked vs hours paid.
  - generalizations 6y ago
    If that's the principle involved, then I think, though IANAL, the statute of limitations applies. If my employer from 20 years ago cheated me of some pay, I'm pretty sure he's safe from litigation at this point. > if you care about your decedents and progeny at all, there is nothing to gain from cheating. You may benefit and die before repercussions occur, but all debts must be paid eventually. I really hope you're not suggesting that we set a precedent of digging through history to find old debts we might be owed.
    - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
      > the statute of limitations applies. The statute of limitations is a law. We are talking about a moral claim that supercedes the text of laws. Remember this is from a time when slavery itself was legal. Also consider there is no statute of limitations for some crimes including murder. > I really hope you're not suggesting that we set a precedent of digging through history to find old debts we might be owed. I think he's more suggesting we not set a precedent of permitting people to benefit financially from atrocities if they can run out the clock.
      - rayiner 6y ago
        More important, the statute of limitations is a law that’s established at the discretion of the legislature for policy reasons. There’s no inherent moral right to a statute of limitations
- malandrew 6y ago
  And the second order of business assuming it is even a good idea would be to determine who should pay. The answer "taxpayers" is an absolute non-starter. My family only showed up in this country in the mid 80s and have zero responsibility for things that happened well over 100 years ago. We also don't live in states where slavery was ever a thing.
  - sonotmyname 6y ago
    > We also don't live in states where slavery was ever a thing. That’s not really... likely. Even if your state wasn’t a ‘state’ Pre-abolishion, there was slavery there. The history of slavery in North America did not start at Plymouth Rock.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
    > And the second order of business assuming it is even a good idea would be to determine who should pay. Thats easy, the same government that permitted and regulated slavery is the first defendant. After that any other legal institution that still exists in the same form (universities, state and city governments, non-profits, etc.). > We also don't live in states where slavery was ever a thing. They made the cross country railroad on slave labor. Pretty sure every state has benefitted from rail traffic.
  - throwaway535 6y ago
    > My family only showed up in this country in the mid 80s and have zero responsibility for things that happened well over 100 years ago. I guess, here is a simple non-rhetorical thought question: Why should your family get any of the benefits of this country's past? I don't know you or where you/your family immigrated from, but your family came here for the benefits of the US. Maybe the US was a wealthier country than where your family left, or maybe more stable, or maybe they felt there was more opportunity for economic mobility. Those benefits/properties where present before your family decided to move, so why should you benefit from them? Note, I'm actually pro-immigration and support people moving here, but I think it's a good exercise to walk through. All of those benefits were accrued before your family came here, and yet your family gets to benefit from them. Why? As you said, they had zero responsibility for things that happened before they arrived. So by the same token, if the country had both assets and debts before you arrived, why shouldn't the logic that says you and your family should take on and gain from those assets that pre-dated you, also not mean that you should take on the associated debts? I can't think of a reason why someone immigrating should only take on the benefits of the assets but be excluded from the liabilities. But am open to discussion.
- tunesmith 6y ago
  Engaging with those who don't like the idea is a fool's errand, because a lot of these people will just cherry-pick whatever objection they can think of in bad faith. And even in good faith, people who don't like the idea all have different reasons. Start with the root axiom "Slavery is wrong", people will be happy to engage with you on that. Disregard them and move on to the next syllogism, you'll have a different set of people objecting. One thing that might be helpful, if I'm in favor and you're opposed, then maybe identify one obstacle - it can be as big as you wish - where if resolved, you'd be in favor of reparations. Then maybe that is worth engaging with.
  - generalizations 6y ago
    > One thing that might be helpful, if I'm in favor and you're opposed, then maybe identify one obstacle - it can be as big as you wish - where if resolved, you'd be in favor of reparations. Then maybe that is worth engaging with. On the contrary; if I represent the status quo and you represent a new idea, the onus is on you to defend it. It's your responsibility. Put it out there. Say exactly what your thesis is, and back it up, and defend it. Sunlight is the best disinfectant - anything about your ideas that are indefensible will be shown to be so, and what's left will be gold. To make my point via reductio ad absurdum, let's flip the script and use something hyperbolic: you represent the status quo, and I represent (heaven forbid) some new variation of racial cleansing. But, I declare to those opposed, "engaging with those who don't like the idea [of racial cleansing] is a fool's errand, because a lot of these people will just cherry-pick whatever objection they can think of in bad faith." So, I say to you, the skeptical defendent of the status quo, if you don't like the idea of racial cleansing, "then maybe identify one obstacle - it can be as big as you wish - where if resolved, you'd be in favor of [exterminating a race]." To me, flipping your proposition on its head like that makes it pretty obvious that it's unsatisfactory as the starting point of an intellectual discussion. It even tends to beg the question: you've made your position the 'null hypothesis'. The status quo should be the null hypothesis. > And even in good faith, people who don't like the idea all have different reasons. Start with the root axiom "Slavery is wrong", people will be happy to engage with you on that. Disregard them and move on to the next syllogism, you'll have a different set of people objecting. Yes, exactly. Your job is to answer every set of people who don't like your idea. Just because you believe that this new thing is moral and right does not make it so, and it is the acme of hubris to distain to justify your proposed actions.
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago
  > That's because the first order of business is to demonstrate that reparations are even a good idea. The first order of business is to demonstrate the validity of the claim. The benefit of the reparation is dependent on the form of the reparation itself.

generalizations 6y ago

> But we can hardly answer them if we refuse to engage with the idea of reparations to begin with. That's because the first order of business is to demonstrate that reparations are even a good idea. Engage with those who don't like the idea, and address the concerns they raise, if you can; then deal with minutae.

seph-reed 6y ago
Literally paying a person for their time. If an employer was stealing money from their employees, why would you have to demonstrate they should have to pay off the debt? There is a measurable financial debt here. Also, it sets a precedent: if you care about your decedents and progeny at all, there is nothing to gain from cheating. You may benefit and die before repercussions occur, but all debts must be paid eventually. Justice is hard, but not when it comes to hours worked vs hours paid.
- generalizations 6y ago
  If that's the principle involved, then I think, though IANAL, the statute of limitations applies. If my employer from 20 years ago cheated me of some pay, I'm pretty sure he's safe from litigation at this point. > if you care about your decedents and progeny at all, there is nothing to gain from cheating. You may benefit and die before repercussions occur, but all debts must be paid eventually. I really hope you're not suggesting that we set a precedent of digging through history to find old debts we might be owed.
  - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
    > the statute of limitations applies. The statute of limitations is a law. We are talking about a moral claim that supercedes the text of laws. Remember this is from a time when slavery itself was legal. Also consider there is no statute of limitations for some crimes including murder. > I really hope you're not suggesting that we set a precedent of digging through history to find old debts we might be owed. I think he's more suggesting we not set a precedent of permitting people to benefit financially from atrocities if they can run out the clock.
    - rayiner 6y ago
      More important, the statute of limitations is a law that’s established at the discretion of the legislature for policy reasons. There’s no inherent moral right to a statute of limitations
malandrew 6y ago
And the second order of business assuming it is even a good idea would be to determine who should pay. The answer "taxpayers" is an absolute non-starter. My family only showed up in this country in the mid 80s and have zero responsibility for things that happened well over 100 years ago. We also don't live in states where slavery was ever a thing.
- sonotmyname 6y ago
  > We also don't live in states where slavery was ever a thing. That’s not really... likely. Even if your state wasn’t a ‘state’ Pre-abolishion, there was slavery there. The history of slavery in North America did not start at Plymouth Rock.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago
  > And the second order of business assuming it is even a good idea would be to determine who should pay. Thats easy, the same government that permitted and regulated slavery is the first defendant. After that any other legal institution that still exists in the same form (universities, state and city governments, non-profits, etc.). > We also don't live in states where slavery was ever a thing. They made the cross country railroad on slave labor. Pretty sure every state has benefitted from rail traffic.
- throwaway535 6y ago
  > My family only showed up in this country in the mid 80s and have zero responsibility for things that happened well over 100 years ago. I guess, here is a simple non-rhetorical thought question: Why should your family get any of the benefits of this country's past? I don't know you or where you/your family immigrated from, but your family came here for the benefits of the US. Maybe the US was a wealthier country than where your family left, or maybe more stable, or maybe they felt there was more opportunity for economic mobility. Those benefits/properties where present before your family decided to move, so why should you benefit from them? Note, I'm actually pro-immigration and support people moving here, but I think it's a good exercise to walk through. All of those benefits were accrued before your family came here, and yet your family gets to benefit from them. Why? As you said, they had zero responsibility for things that happened before they arrived. So by the same token, if the country had both assets and debts before you arrived, why shouldn't the logic that says you and your family should take on and gain from those assets that pre-dated you, also not mean that you should take on the associated debts? I can't think of a reason why someone immigrating should only take on the benefits of the assets but be excluded from the liabilities. But am open to discussion.
tunesmith 6y ago
Engaging with those who don't like the idea is a fool's errand, because a lot of these people will just cherry-pick whatever objection they can think of in bad faith. And even in good faith, people who don't like the idea all have different reasons. Start with the root axiom "Slavery is wrong", people will be happy to engage with you on that. Disregard them and move on to the next syllogism, you'll have a different set of people objecting. One thing that might be helpful, if I'm in favor and you're opposed, then maybe identify one obstacle - it can be as big as you wish - where if resolved, you'd be in favor of reparations. Then maybe that is worth engaging with.
- generalizations 6y ago
  > One thing that might be helpful, if I'm in favor and you're opposed, then maybe identify one obstacle - it can be as big as you wish - where if resolved, you'd be in favor of reparations. Then maybe that is worth engaging with. On the contrary; if I represent the status quo and you represent a new idea, the onus is on you to defend it. It's your responsibility. Put it out there. Say exactly what your thesis is, and back it up, and defend it. Sunlight is the best disinfectant - anything about your ideas that are indefensible will be shown to be so, and what's left will be gold. To make my point via reductio ad absurdum, let's flip the script and use something hyperbolic: you represent the status quo, and I represent (heaven forbid) some new variation of racial cleansing. But, I declare to those opposed, "engaging with those who don't like the idea [of racial cleansing] is a fool's errand, because a lot of these people will just cherry-pick whatever objection they can think of in bad faith." So, I say to you, the skeptical defendent of the status quo, if you don't like the idea of racial cleansing, "then maybe identify one obstacle - it can be as big as you wish - where if resolved, you'd be in favor of [exterminating a race]." To me, flipping your proposition on its head like that makes it pretty obvious that it's unsatisfactory as the starting point of an intellectual discussion. It even tends to beg the question: you've made your position the 'null hypothesis'. The status quo should be the null hypothesis. > And even in good faith, people who don't like the idea all have different reasons. Start with the root axiom "Slavery is wrong", people will be happy to engage with you on that. Disregard them and move on to the next syllogism, you'll have a different set of people objecting. Yes, exactly. Your job is to answer every set of people who don't like your idea. Just because you believe that this new thing is moral and right does not make it so, and it is the acme of hubris to distain to justify your proposed actions.
chordalkeyboard 6y ago
> That's because the first order of business is to demonstrate that reparations are even a good idea. The first order of business is to demonstrate the validity of the claim. The benefit of the reparation is dependent on the form of the reparation itself.