4 ms·

I agree, the fact that the UK government was still paying off slave-owner debt in 2015 (https://www.gov.uk/government/news/repayment-of-26-billion-historical-de

I agree, the fact that the UK government was still paying off slave-owner debt in 2015 (https://www.gov.uk/government/news/repayment-of-26-billion-historical-debt-to-be-completed-by-government https://www.gov.uk/government/news/repayment-of-26-billion-h...) instead of freeing itself from that debt because the idea of giving the descendants of slave owners who were "harmed" in the loss of their "property", is completely bonkers.

KoolKat23 1y ago
That's more to do with the method in which it was resolved, it was ended in place of government debt. They can't simply renege on government debts purely due to its origin. It's like saying they should in part renege on some current 2008 financial crisis debts.
- Defletter 1y ago
  I mean, they can renege, Parliamentary Sovereignty and all that jazz. The choice not to renege is indeed a choice.
  - KoolKat23 1y ago
    Of course it is. Tell me who wants to buy a governments bonds when they renege on their obligations. I haven't looked into it, but there is also a good chance the bonds have changed hands since.
    - Defletter 1y ago
      Not saying it's a good idea but the choice will always be there, and the decision not to do it is nonetheless still a choice. And so coming full-circle back to reparations, why don't we want societies to correct past wrongs? Why is honouring two-century old debt so world-shatteringly important, but fixing two-century old injustice (and its ongoing legacies) scoffed at?
      - KoolKat23 1y ago
        Because two-century old injustice is handwavey pie-in-the-sky talk,it is also ridiculously selective. There are other injustices too and how do you determine what the amount is? Do you offset slave ancestors privilege for growing up in the 1st world against their ancestors losses, what is the actual tangible loss due to the past rather than those due to more modern injustices such as overt racism or mere growing up in a poorly run town? It's completely impractical and/or virtue signalling. Reneging on debt is a very real decision taken today (not in the past). Practically speaking it signals to bondholders you can't be trusted to keep your word. Hardly honourable, not that they'd worry about this point of view, it's cold hard calculation, will you renege when you proceed on your next ideological crusade, this signals yes.
        Defletter 1y ago
        Got it, human suffering is less important than debt
        KoolKat23 1y ago
        That's a reach, actually completely disingenuous. You try help someone based on their CURRENT circumstances, not based on their relationship with someone who died 200 years ago. Completely ridiculous, what about those whose parents were drug addicts, or were kept out of school, or were just purely unlucky to be brought up in and surrounded by poverty. You'll find there are many, more contemporaneous, reasons for suffering and that there are many people suffering that do not have any previously persecuted ancestors. Address their current situation without bias or favouritism.
        Defletter 1y ago
        > You try help someone based on their CURRENT circumstances You claim I'm being disingenuous and then say this as if I haven't been this entire time referring to historic injustices AND THEIR ONGOING LEGACIES. Nah, y'all just prefer to selectively ignore that part.
- Teever 1y ago
  Would you be opposed to the British government mandating that the descendants of slavers need to repay this debt? Why or why not?
  - KoolKat23 1y ago
    Yes I would oppose it, how do you decide what is what at this juncture? Should Alcapone's children refund any inheritance? Do you extend this further and tax them for their privileged upbringing? This is absurd, and goes against our liberal principles of fairness. Not equity, fairness.
    - Teever 1y ago
      So in other words you feel that society as a whole should pay the cost of reparations to slavers? If that's the case, why do you feel that society as a whole should do so but shouldn't bear the cost of reparations to the descendents of slaves?
bitshiftfaced 1y ago
These bonds were a consolidated, tradable asset. They were likely traded many times over the centuries. They could end up in things like pension funds after 200 years.
wtcactus 1y ago
Well, that's mostly because the UK, did something almost no one ever did before and not only abolished slavery (something most Cristian kingdoms did by themselves) but even took a step further and went to war to prevent it from continuing. Sure, you don't see countries with a very, very long history of slavery like most Arab nations, or India, or most of the descendants of African kingdoms, paying debt they contracted to end slavery, because they couldn't care less about ending it, and even went to war against Britain to continue practicing it. https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/Britains-Role-Ending-Slavery-Worldwide/ https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/Brita...

KoolKat23 1y ago

That's more to do with the method in which it was resolved, it was ended in place of government debt. They can't simply renege on government debts purely due to its origin. It's like saying they should in part renege on some current 2008 financial crisis debts.

Defletter 1y ago
I mean, they can renege, Parliamentary Sovereignty and all that jazz. The choice not to renege is indeed a choice.
- KoolKat23 1y ago
  Of course it is. Tell me who wants to buy a governments bonds when they renege on their obligations. I haven't looked into it, but there is also a good chance the bonds have changed hands since.
  - Defletter 1y ago
    Not saying it's a good idea but the choice will always be there, and the decision not to do it is nonetheless still a choice. And so coming full-circle back to reparations, why don't we want societies to correct past wrongs? Why is honouring two-century old debt so world-shatteringly important, but fixing two-century old injustice (and its ongoing legacies) scoffed at?
    - KoolKat23 1y ago
      Because two-century old injustice is handwavey pie-in-the-sky talk,it is also ridiculously selective. There are other injustices too and how do you determine what the amount is? Do you offset slave ancestors privilege for growing up in the 1st world against their ancestors losses, what is the actual tangible loss due to the past rather than those due to more modern injustices such as overt racism or mere growing up in a poorly run town? It's completely impractical and/or virtue signalling. Reneging on debt is a very real decision taken today (not in the past). Practically speaking it signals to bondholders you can't be trusted to keep your word. Hardly honourable, not that they'd worry about this point of view, it's cold hard calculation, will you renege when you proceed on your next ideological crusade, this signals yes.
      - Defletter 1y ago
        Got it, human suffering is less important than debt
        KoolKat23 1y ago
        That's a reach, actually completely disingenuous. You try help someone based on their CURRENT circumstances, not based on their relationship with someone who died 200 years ago. Completely ridiculous, what about those whose parents were drug addicts, or were kept out of school, or were just purely unlucky to be brought up in and surrounded by poverty. You'll find there are many, more contemporaneous, reasons for suffering and that there are many people suffering that do not have any previously persecuted ancestors. Address their current situation without bias or favouritism.
        Defletter 1y ago
        > You try help someone based on their CURRENT circumstances You claim I'm being disingenuous and then say this as if I haven't been this entire time referring to historic injustices AND THEIR ONGOING LEGACIES. Nah, y'all just prefer to selectively ignore that part.
Teever 1y ago
Would you be opposed to the British government mandating that the descendants of slavers need to repay this debt? Why or why not?
- KoolKat23 1y ago
  Yes I would oppose it, how do you decide what is what at this juncture? Should Alcapone's children refund any inheritance? Do you extend this further and tax them for their privileged upbringing? This is absurd, and goes against our liberal principles of fairness. Not equity, fairness.
  - Teever 1y ago
    So in other words you feel that society as a whole should pay the cost of reparations to slavers? If that's the case, why do you feel that society as a whole should do so but shouldn't bear the cost of reparations to the descendents of slaves?

bitshiftfaced 1y ago

These bonds were a consolidated, tradable asset. They were likely traded many times over the centuries. They could end up in things like pension funds after 200 years.

wtcactus 1y ago

Well, that's mostly because the UK, did something almost no one ever did before and not only abolished slavery (something most Cristian kingdoms did by themselves) but even took a step further and went to war to prevent it from continuing. Sure, you don't see countries with a very, very long history of slavery like most Arab nations, or India, or most of the descendants of African kingdoms, paying debt they contracted to end slavery, because they couldn't care less about ending it, and even went to war against Britain to continue practicing it. https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/Britains-Role-Ending-Slavery-Worldwide/ https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/Brita...