Political Theory

Re: Reparations and it's possible consquences.

tfr000 — Thu, 13 May 2010 17:06:09 GMT

Also, the American indians signed many legal contracts (which I'm sure most of them couldn't read and they probably did not fully understand), selling their lands to European settlers, often for reasonable sums of money. This was in early Colonial days, long before the USA. What say we of those now?

Re: Reparations and it's possible consquences.

bloomj31 — Wed, 12 May 2010 15:10:22 GMT

First of all, how do we know who owned what?

Re: Reparations and it's possible consquences.

E. R. Olovetto — Wed, 12 May 2010 15:07:31 GMT

It would also be unjust... you can't punish children for the crimes of their parents. Sometimes there can be no justice. If you wait until someone is dead to persecute them for a crime, there's pretty much nothing you can do.

An heir of a plantation owner isn't guilty of slavery, but they still have stolen property. One needs to show a clear link between whatever land and the descendent of a slave or Indian though. Saying, "I'm black. Blacks were enslaved. This land employed slave labor, therefore I have a claim to it.", isn't sufficient.

Re: Reparations and it's possible consquences.

Skyler Collins — Wed, 12 May 2010 14:20:32 GMT

@ Scott F, if you haven't, check out Walter Block's lecture on reparations in his Radical Libertarianism series: http://mises.org/media/1481

If I own land that was originally stolen from someone, it must be returned forthwith (the process started). That is the only just thing to do. Would there be swaths of homeless people? Sure, but then there'd also be swaths of mortgage-free people as well (mostly, I'm sure, who doesn't have a mortgage?), who's income just went up and are in a situation to buy or rent new housing.

Title insurance would indemnify the losses in such a situation, wouldn't it? All of this wouldn't happen in a twinkling of an eye. Your friend has sensationalized the situation, never a logical approach.

Re: Reparations and it's possible consquences.

Sieben — Wed, 12 May 2010 13:48:18 GMT

It would also be unjust... you can't punish children for the crimes of their parents. Sometimes there can be no justice. If you wait until someone is dead to persecute them for a crime, there's pretty much nothing you can do.

It especially cheeses me off that 'white people' enslaved 'black people', even though my grandfather came to America in the early 1910s, and the vast, vast majority of our ancestors never owned slaves.

Re: Reparations and it's possible consquences.

Merlin — Wed, 12 May 2010 07:36:46 GMT

You are right and returning land to the heirs of those which held it just a generation ago is impossible. I know, around here we’ve been trying to do that from two decades and all we got was internal strife, murder and a lot less FDIs that one would have excepted as no one knows to whom land really belong to. Rothbard had no idea of what he was asking when he went for that. I say, just let anyone who holds property from day one of anarchy keep it, and let the market sort the winners out. I see no other way to do it.

Re: Reparations and it's possible consquences.

cret — Wed, 12 May 2010 07:04:32 GMT

somheow it seems tha absolute part gets more absolute for some than others.

there would likely be a lot of rents being paid to new land owners.

Re: Reparations and it's possible consquences.

Prateek Sanjay — Tue, 11 May 2010 10:19:00 GMT

There is no absolute rule of law.

The law is only compromised, interpreted, and catered to the particular situation and people, and the court would more likely bend according to what will please both parties and avoid unnecessary negative consequences.

This is the way law would work in free society and this is the law works in the usual society as well. There is no singular interpretation of the law.

Reparations and it's possible consquences.

AnonLLF — Tue, 11 May 2010 08:41:27 GMT

Having a debate with one of my friends who is also a libertarian albeit a strange quite recently reformed Objectivist one ,they brought up an interesting point.

If land and property currently lived on was returned to it's original owners after proof was found who those people were or their descendants were, then wouldn't there be massive amounts of dispossessed homeless people? wouldn't this start a war?

My only thought would be that if libertarian principles were largely accepted ,people would be reasonably ok with this.

Does this seem likely? if so how could we prevent this?