Entrepreneurship vs Redistribution

[lizzie]

1. Anyone who could prove himself a descendent of slaves.

2. Anyone who owns land once worked by slaves.

a current owner would hold no responsibility for the actions of a former property owner.

 

[GottaGo]

Not at all. That's why earlier in this thread, I spoke of qualified individuals, those who could show some relationship to slave land.

But they aren't the ones that were slaves, nor are the people inhabiting the land the ones who enslaved. It doesn't matter if they can show a relationship or not. They are not 'qualified individuals' on either side, since neither was involved in the act you deem worthy of reparations.

If you feel that these people deserve money for something that did not happen to them, what is owed to the descendants of those who worked in the steel mills, the children who worked in the textile and garment factories, the Irish and Scots who came over as indentured servants? Why would they not deserve something to ease the burden of guilt from centuries ago?

 

[Joe Steel]

a current owner would hold no responsibility for the actions of a former property owner.

Says who?

 

[Joe Steel]

But they aren't the ones that were slaves, nor are the people inhabiting the land the ones who enslaved. It doesn't matter if they can show a relationship or not. They are not 'qualified individuals' on either side, since neither was involved in the act you deem worthy of reparations.
...

Under current law that might be a problem but I'm proposing something different. The land is all that remains so its value must be converted

 

[GottaGo]

Under current law that might be a problem but I'm proposing something different. The land is all that remains so its value must be converted

You're not taking into consideration the monetary investment in the land by the original owners, nor the cost to feed, clothe and shelter the people who worked the land. Just because they worked someone else's land doesn't mean they are entitled to a portion of it's value.

They did necessarily clear the land, they only worked it for a crop. What about the crofters in Scotland? The sharecroppers here in the US? They didn't own the land, they all only worked someone else's land.

Why should the value of the land be 'converted' to pay an imaginary debt?

You've yet to provide reasoning behind your suggestion. You just keep repeating the same thing, which does not make it true.

 

[Joe Steel]

You're not taking into consideration the monetary investment in the land by the original owners, nor the cost to feed, clothe and shelter the people who worked the land. Just because they worked someone else's land doesn't mean they are entitled to a portion of it's value ...

The value of their labor was taken from them. Restitution is in order.

 

[GottaGo]

The value of their labor was taken from them. Restitution is in order.

Again, they are gone. The people who you feel need 'restitution' didn't perform the work. Slavery, though now known to be wrong, was legal and accepted back then. Once slavery was abolished, and they were given their freedom, that ended any 'wrong' that may have been done to them.

You have yet to address the fact that you are looking at one nationality only, and do not see any parallel between the slaves and other people who worked the land for the landowner.

 

[Joe Steel]

Again, they are gone. The people who you feel need 'restitution' didn't perform the work. Slavery, though now known to be wrong, was legal and accepted back then. Once slavery was abolished, and they were given their freedom, that ended any 'wrong' that may have been done to them.

The slaves would have passed the taken wealth to their heirs. Their heirs alive today are poorer for not having inherited the wealth taken from their forebears.

 

[GottaGo]

The slaves would have passed the taken wealth to their heirs. Their heirs alive today are poorer for not having inherited the wealth taken from their forebears.

What wealth? They worked the land owned by someone else. They were fed, clothed and sheltered.

There was no guarantee then, nor now, that any wealth would or will pass hands.

There is no way to put a value on land that they didn't own, therefore your idea has no merit in basis.