> No, the dumb thing is to use this concept in a way that makes it
> meaningless. The argument was that "reparations" is a meaningful concept
> only in the context of specific, measurable damages to clearly identifiable
> parties - and the idea of "reparations for slavery" fails that test. To
> which Cmde Lacny replied identifying government as one such a party, which
> is pretty half baked for several reasons.
This is not a dumb reason to oppose reparation, it is a good reason. It isn't one of the reasons I listed as dumb though. The ones I listed as such were not valid reasons to oppose reparations or much of anything else in my opinion. I never said I was in favor of reparations in the form of a monetary payment only that Justins reasons for opposing it were no good. It is a worthwhile debate to discuss how to repair damage done in the past but I don't believe that monetary compansation is the most productive way to go about this. Reparations do not always have to be in the form of a transfer of funds from one group to another. There are many good reasons to oppose such a financial transfer scheme but because someone might be made to feel guilty or someone with enough money might "buy" their way out are not good reasons. Try applying the "some people may buy their way out" argument to any other redistributive scheme and see how well it holds up.
> Another one, and I believe more convincing, is that the
> government that actually supported slavery does not exist anymore - it was
> defeated and disbanded by the government to whose heir Cmde Lacny wants to
> send the bill. It is tantamount to holding the current Russian government
> accountable for Nazi crimes on the grounds that the Soviet Union occupied
> part of German territory. Pure lunacy.
>
> Wojtek
Bad analogy in my opinion but the fact that the current US government is not comprised of members who upheld slavery laws is not a trivial thing. It falls short of being the end of the debate. Do you oppose returning artworks stolen during the WWII for the same reason? If not why the inconsistency? If so how do you claim there is justice in that?
John Thornton