9 ms·

Yes, but it removes one of the core arguments for reparations -- "this is _our_ wealth, which we created, and which we simply want returned to us." I don't thi

Yes, but it removes one of the core arguments for reparations -- "this is _our_ wealth, which we created, and which we simply want returned to us." I don't think you can find anyone who would disagree that individual people and states benefitted. But all those people are dead.

pr0zac 4y ago
I'm really confused why I keep seeing arguments suggesting that that excerpt in any way matters to the argument of reparations. I've never had a strong opinion on the topic in either direction but the argument of, as you put it, "this is _our_ wealth, which we created, and which we simply want returned to us." doesn't require excess wealth to have been created by slavery, it simply requires that some of the wealth didn't go to the people that did the work to produce it resulting in those people (and their descendants) not profiting from it. Like I said in the other place I saw this, wage theft is illegal because someone isn't getting paid for work they did, its not in any way based on that theft providing economic growth compared to paying folks.
- chernevik 4y ago
  But the reparations argument generally makes exactly that argument -- the US is wealthier than it would have been b/c of slavery. If so, this justifies taxing present citizens for reparations -- they are wealthier because of slavery, and should give back a share of that increase in their wealth. Of course slavery was a theft of wages. But the people who benefitted are long gone.
  - headsupernova 4y ago
    Can you link to any example of that argument being used for reparations? Also generational wealth is like _the_ predictive factor in future economic outcomes. This is basic stuff.
    - robertlagrant 4y ago
      Point is the only case for taking money from people now and giving it to other people is based on the wealth people have now. Everyone involved in slavery (or the slavery reparations attempts to address) is long dead. The argument is "you are wealthier because of slavery". Which may not be true according to the above. I don't know if that line of reasoning is correct; I'm just laying it out for discussion.

pr0zac 4y ago

I'm really confused why I keep seeing arguments suggesting that that excerpt in any way matters to the argument of reparations. I've never had a strong opinion on the topic in either direction but the argument of, as you put it, "this is _our_ wealth, which we created, and which we simply want returned to us." doesn't require excess wealth to have been created by slavery, it simply requires that some of the wealth didn't go to the people that did the work to produce it resulting in those people (and their descendants) not profiting from it. Like I said in the other place I saw this, wage theft is illegal because someone isn't getting paid for work they did, its not in any way based on that theft providing economic growth compared to paying folks.

chernevik 4y ago
But the reparations argument generally makes exactly that argument -- the US is wealthier than it would have been b/c of slavery. If so, this justifies taxing present citizens for reparations -- they are wealthier because of slavery, and should give back a share of that increase in their wealth. Of course slavery was a theft of wages. But the people who benefitted are long gone.
- headsupernova 4y ago
  Can you link to any example of that argument being used for reparations? Also generational wealth is like _the_ predictive factor in future economic outcomes. This is basic stuff.
  - robertlagrant 4y ago
    Point is the only case for taking money from people now and giving it to other people is based on the wealth people have now. Everyone involved in slavery (or the slavery reparations attempts to address) is long dead. The argument is "you are wealthier because of slavery". Which may not be true according to the above. I don't know if that line of reasoning is correct; I'm just laying it out for discussion.