4 ms·

Assuming your reparations claim was correct, injustice becomes ok if it happens often enough.

rayiner 4y ago
Who said that? Stuff can be “not okay” but also “not the problem of anyone currently alive.” We have a concept of a statute of limitations in law, for example.
- bilbo0s 4y ago
  Just being pedantic here, but there's not limitation on, say, homicide. Whether or not there is a statute of limitations is generally dependent on the severity of the offense. But again, just a nit-pick. To my mind, the mistake is in paying any sort of reparations to anyone, ever. As a nation state, unfortunately, some things you have to go all in on. Not paying reparations is one of those things. I am OK with forcing state and local governments to pay out for egregious acts taken in explicit contravention of Constitutional rights. But that's because as a nation state we should also go all in on defending the constitutional rights of our citizens. I know that's talking out of both sides of my mouth, but the reality is that nation states can incur far larger obligations than state and local governments can. A nation state could end up with an obligation that realistically simply can't be paid.
  - jacobr1 4y ago
    > Just being pedantic here, but there's not limitation on, say, homicide. There is though ... the lifetime of perpetrator.
  - rhino369 4y ago
    >Just being pedantic here, but there's not limitation on, say, homicide. Right, but sons aren't held responsible for their father's crimes. And while the Father's estate can be liable for wrongful death, that is generally limited in time. Certainly, you can't just go after all descendants decades later. It's not just a slippery slope, but fair compensation is essentially impossible to determine. The average Japanese America is far richer than the average American--significantly so. Should you discount for that? Doesn't seem fair to penalize them for being successful. But the other hand, maybe that shows that the lasting harm wasn't that bad. A lot easier to just let the past be the past and to police our actions going forward.

Who said that? Stuff can be “not okay” but also “not the problem of anyone currently alive.” We have a concept of a statute of limitations in law, for example.

bilbo0s 4y ago
Just being pedantic here, but there's not limitation on, say, homicide. Whether or not there is a statute of limitations is generally dependent on the severity of the offense. But again, just a nit-pick. To my mind, the mistake is in paying any sort of reparations to anyone, ever. As a nation state, unfortunately, some things you have to go all in on. Not paying reparations is one of those things. I am OK with forcing state and local governments to pay out for egregious acts taken in explicit contravention of Constitutional rights. But that's because as a nation state we should also go all in on defending the constitutional rights of our citizens. I know that's talking out of both sides of my mouth, but the reality is that nation states can incur far larger obligations than state and local governments can. A nation state could end up with an obligation that realistically simply can't be paid.
- jacobr1 4y ago
  > Just being pedantic here, but there's not limitation on, say, homicide. There is though ... the lifetime of perpetrator.
- rhino369 4y ago
  >Just being pedantic here, but there's not limitation on, say, homicide. Right, but sons aren't held responsible for their father's crimes. And while the Father's estate can be liable for wrongful death, that is generally limited in time. Certainly, you can't just go after all descendants decades later. It's not just a slippery slope, but fair compensation is essentially impossible to determine. The average Japanese America is far richer than the average American--significantly so. Should you discount for that? Doesn't seem fair to penalize them for being successful. But the other hand, maybe that shows that the lasting harm wasn't that bad. A lot easier to just let the past be the past and to police our actions going forward.