The UN demands the US pay Reparations

[genuineoriginal]

Do you believe that the government is ever liable for what it does?

The current government, the United States of America, is the government that freed the slaves.

The government you want reparations from is the Confederate States of America, which lost the war and was disbanded.

Why are you insisting that the government that freed the slaves is the one that should pay for the actions of the government it fought over the issue?

So, what kind of reparations should the United States of America pay for freeing the slaves?

 

[genuineoriginal]

I think the inequality is evidence for the need of redress, but it isn't directly the cause. If slavery had ended, and the former slaves and their children had quickly become full and equal citizens, there would be little cause for an additional remedy.

Since it is the Democrat Party (a private organization) that is responsible for the former slaves not becoming full and equal citizens, then only Democrats should pay.

 

[genuineoriginal]

The United States of today isn't the heir to the United Stateses of the past. It's the United States. It's the same political body. It may have changed, but in the same way that you are the same person you were yesterday, it's the same United States that participated in slavery.

No, the United States of today is not the same United States that participated in slavery.

It's not that a debt was handed down across generations. It's that a debt was made and never paid or discharged.

There was no debt owed, but if there is any case that can be made that there is a debt owed, then a stronger case can be made that any and all debts related to slavery was discharged by the Civil War that ended slavery.

 

[rexlunae]

The current government, the United States of America, is the government that freed the slaves.

It also held slaves and engaged in segregation after that. There were slaves in the Union even during the Civil War.

The government you want reparations from is the Confederate States of America, which lost the war and was disbanded.

There is no Confederate States of America, and in case you were wondering, no, the United States isn't responsible for the actions of that failed government. Some of the states that made up the Confederacy could be responsible for their actions before, during, and after the war, though.

Why are you insisting that the government that freed the slaves is the one that should pay for the actions of the government it fought over the issue?

Because that isn't the one and only action that the government took. You act as if all of time and American history began December 18th, 1865.

 

[rexlunae]

No, the United States of today is not the same United States that participated in slavery.


There was no debt owed, but if there is any case that can be made that there is a debt owed, then a stronger case can be made that any and all debts related to slavery was discharged by the Civil War that ended slavery.

And again, the Civil War didn't compensate anyone for four-hundred years of slavery. It simply helped to halt some additional crimes against humanity from happening.

 

[HisServant]

And again, the Civil War didn't compensate anyone for four-hundred years of slavery. It simply helped to halt some additional crimes against humanity from happening.

1653 to 1861 is not 400 years.

1653 is the year when a lawsuit determined that a slave could be someones property in the virginia colony. Before that it was indentured servitude.

 

[Traditio]

How is it complicated? It's yes, or no. It's not even absolute, unless you say "no". I didn't ask you if the government was always liable, or liable by default. I asked if you thought the government was ever liable, i.e. if it is possible at all for the government to do wrong and then be held accountable. If you rule out any sort of government liability for any action that it takes, there's no point in having this discussion with you.

This is the most verbose silence I've ever seen.

As I said, I'll keep my silence unless and until I see it in an argumentative context.

The United States of today isn't the heir to the United Stateses of the past. It's the United States. It's the same political body. It may have changed, but in the same way that you are the same person you were yesterday, it's the same United States that participated in slavery. It's not that a debt was handed down across generations. It's that a debt was made and never paid or discharged.

Ok. So you wish to amend the argument to read:


1. The US government has incurred an unpaid debt against black people who are now dead, which persons have heirs today.
2. Whenever the person who owed the debt remains alive, but the persons to whom the debt is owed have died, the person who incurred the debt must pay the heirs.
3. Therefore, the US government has an obligation to pay, or else, preferentially treat, all black people currently living in the US.

I'm inclined to accept 2 as a general rule, though one that may not hold in all cases.

I'm inclined to deny:

1. The first premise
2. The logical cohesion of the argument

With respect to 2: The conclusion which must be drawn is: "Therefore, the US must pay the heirs," not "The US must pay all black people."

But let us even grant for a moment that the argument follows, if the premises are all granted:

I am also inclined, with respect to 1, to deny the truth of the first premise. Has the US government incurred a debt? Has that debt, granted that it has been incurred, not been paid off?

I fully grant that the US government permitted slavery, but from this it does not follow that the US government was responsible for slavery. And even granted that it was, the problem with talking about unpaid debts is that these are usually understood in terms of monetary values.

So, let's consider this for a moment. Let us suppose that I granted you that reparations are owed. The reparations which are owed aren't "whatever it is that's required to decrease inequality between blacks and whites." The reparations which are owed is the precise monetary value required to compensate blacks for lost wages, punitive damages, emotional trauma, etc.

At this point, that's probably impossible to assess.

And I'll still insist on asking: granted that the US government has incurred a debt, have they not since paid black people back, albeit in forms other than "strict reparations"?

Again, I'll appeal to welfare, affirmative action, etc.

So, I'll sum up:

1. The argument doesn't follow.
2. Even if the argument did follow, it's not clear to me that the US government has incurred a debt.
3. Granted that it has, the debt is probably impossible to assess.
4. Granted that it is assessable, the debt which is owed isn't what you want it to be.
5. Further granted that a debt has been incurred, it's not clear to me that blacks haven't already been compensated.

 

[Traditio]

And again, the Civil War didn't compensate anyone for four-hundred years of slavery. It simply helped to halt some additional crimes against humanity from happening.

This answer doesn't really answer GO's point.

 

[rexlunae]

I am also inclined, with respect to 1, to deny the truth of the first premise. Has the US government incurred a debt? Has that debt, granted that it has been incurred, not been paid off?

How can a debt have been paid off when you think it never existed in the first place?

I fully grant that the US government permitted slavery, but from this it does not follow that the US government was responsible for slavery.

There, you're wrong. The United States didn't merely "permit" slavery. It didn't sit passively by as slavery occurred, as we do today with Sudanese and Qatari slavery. It actively enforced slavery. It participated in slavery, with its courts, with its slave patrols, and with its army. If you want to entertain my premise, you have to actually use it, not your garbled softening of it. No wonder you're so confused...

And even granted that it was, the problem with talking about unpaid debts is that these are usually understood in terms of monetary values.

Sometimes money takes the place where we can't figure out any other way to pay a moral debt.

So, let's consider this for a moment. Let us suppose that I granted you that reparations are owed. The reparations which are owed aren't "whatever it is that's required to decrease inequality between blacks and whites."

Why shouldn't it be? What metric could you propose that would be more just?

The reparations which are owed is the precise monetary value required to compensate blacks for lost wages, punitive damages, emotional trauma, etc.

I'm not sure how you could calculate a precise value for such a thing. But even if you could, you don't mention the unjust deprivation of freedom. You don't mention the unwarranted loss of life and limb that often occurred. You don't mention the systematic disassembly of the family, which is generally quite important to social conservatives. And you don't mention the loss of economic opportunity resulting from deliberately segregationist policies.

At this point, that's probably impossible to assess.

Therefore, you want to assume that it is zero? Right?

And I'll still insist on asking: granted that the US government has incurred a debt, have they not since paid black people back, albeit in forms other than "strict reparations"?

Again, I'll appeal to welfare, affirmative action, etc.

Ah, and perhaps you'd like to charge them for using the public streets, too?

This is a foolish segregationist notion. There's never, to my knowledge, been a single welfare program that was exclusive to black people (and no, affirmative action is not welfare, nor is it reparations). You collect welfare if you meet the qualifications, regardless of race. You can't call something the right of a citizen for white people, and tell black people that it's their reparations.

Now I'll wait for your next preposterous response.

 

[annabenedetti]

You can't call something the right of a citizen for white people, and tell black people that it's their reparations.

:up:

 

[ok doser]

Seems like, at the most, that was some particular people who may have been black.

likewise, there were only "some particular people" who may have owned slaves

 

[ok doser]

who's next?

women, for being denied the right to vote for so long?

homos, for being denied the "right" for their perversion to be accepted as "normal"?

 

[rexlunae]

likewise, there were only "some particular people" who may have owned slaves

Nope, doesn't work. At least, your examples don't impute against the government. The particular people who stole your bicycle didn't likely control the government and wield state power against you. They themselves may owe you something, but the government doesn't. The government itself participated in slavery, and is culpable for it.

 

[rexlunae]

who's next?

women, for being denied the right to vote for so long?

homos, for being denied the "right" for their perversion to be accepted as "normal"?

Good questions. It's almost as if we just shouldn't mistreat entire groups of people en masse. But wouldn't it be ridiculous to suggest that you can't redress one crime, because then you'd have to redress a bunch of others?

 

[ok doser]

Good questions. It's almost as if we just shouldn't mistreat entire groups of people en masse. But wouldn't it be ridiculous to suggest that you can't redress one crime, because then you'd have to redress a bunch of others?

so every time we address what's perceived as a social wrong, that's not enough, we have to make reparations?

i have irish ancestors who were discriminated against when they cam to america in the early 1800's

when do i get my reparations?

 

[rexlunae]

so every time we address what's perceived as a social wrong, that's not enough, we have to make reparations?

Not every time. It depends on the nature of the wrong.

i have irish ancestors who were discriminated against when they cam to america in the early 1800's

when do i get my reparations?

It's certainly a less easy case to make, but not an absurd one to contemplate. I would say that the case for reparations for Irish-Americans is significantly weaker because there isn't a lot of systemic inequality that hurts them now. That doesn't rule it out though.

 

[bybee]

Not every time. It depends on the nature of the wrong.



It's certainly a less easy case to make, but not an absurd one to contemplate. I would say that the case for reparations for Irish-Americans is significantly weaker because there isn't a lot of systemic inequality that hurts them now. That doesn't rule it out though.

Maybe people ought to grow up and get over themselves? Whining about the past is a waste of time.

 

[ok doser]

Not every time. It depends on the nature of the wrong.



It's certainly a less easy case to make, but not an absurd one to contemplate. I would say that the case for reparations for Irish-Americans is significantly weaker because there isn't a lot of systemic inequality that hurts them now. That doesn't rule it out though.

the i demand that my puritan ancestors who were driven out of england in the late 1500's be recompensed - monies to come to me, of course

 

[ok doser]

and my ancestors who were brutalised by native americans in the 1600's and 1700's - i demand my share of casino proceeds

 

[rexlunae]

the i demand that my puritan ancestors who were driven out of england in the late 1500's be recompensed - monies to come to me, of course

I suggest you take that up with the Crown.