Slavery reparations

[WhiteElephants]

Originally posted by MrFun
Whites who are ignorant on how slavery affected blacks hoot and harp about how hard their immigrant ancestors worked and with some, succeeded into moving into the middle class in spite of discrimination. Where did I say that we should ignore the factor of inheritance taxes??

I'm not hooting and harping about anything. I'm suggesting to you that your theory of intergenerational accumulation of capital is a steaming load of crap. You act as thought when families move into the middle class they are given a stamp of approval and will never have a descendent descend that ladder. I brought up inheritance tax because it draws, and or depletes, from this accumulation of wealth theory you've concocted.

Blacks never had the same opportunities that white immigrants had. White immigrants never suffered the same degree of institutional racism that blacks have suffered from.

I find it somewhat troubling that you, and others, take this approach. Lets consider you were growing up and people continually told you how disadvanted you are.

"MrFun is disadvantaged and will never make anything of himself because in MrFun's society he can never get ahead because 'the man' will forever hold him down and there's nothing he can do about it except expect someone to drop a giant bag of money on his lap one day like winning the lottery", and they told you it over, and over, and over. What effect might you think this would have? How might that manifest itself in you?

I'm willing to admit, without a doubt, that slavery was a heinous and immoral act perpetrated on a race. What I'm less willing to admit is this gulf of disadvantages theory that is being crammed down my throat as there are plenty of examples of successful, hugely successful, African American's in our culture. A disproportionate percentage, yes, but then is that any suprise given the fact that they've been told their whole lives there's no hope?

[KrazyHorse]

I heard on MSNBC today that Aetna had insured 33 slaves, I assume as proerty and not life insurance. Now who took out these policies? Shouldn't THEY also be held accountable for this 1.4 trillion? Didn't they get the money from these policies?

Corporations maintain their identities and assets a lot longer than individuals.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

Corporations maintain their identities and assets a lot longer than individuals.

Soooo......the descendants of the slaves can sue the companies....but thedescendants of the slave-owners can NOT or should NOT be sued?

has to be one or the other either descendants of slave owners can and should be sued OR the descendants of the slaves can NOT or should NOT sue.

Which is it?

[KrazyHorse]

No, just that you can't suee descendents for more than they received from their parent's estate, etc.

[KrazyHorse]

Unless somebody inherited a boatload of money from their father, who inherited from their father, etc., you'll have real trouble proving that the modern-day descendent is still responsible for his great great great grandfather's debts.

[KrazyHorse]

Third Reply in a Row

Corporations, meanwhile, have continuous legal existence. Unless there's an episode of bankruptcy or something similar, the corporation remains responsible for its own actions.

Like it or not, corporations are treated as entities seperate from their stockholders.

[MrFun]

I'm waiting for the fourth reply in the row, KrazyHorse.

Talking to yourself??

[KrazyHorse]

It's my only opportunity for intelligent conversation around here.

[orange]

KrazyHorse - are you saying that the corporation is responsible for the reparations, but only to those that they directly affected? IE - former slaves?

(implying that only former slaves can get a check?)

If so, I'd agree with that. But I have a feeling you're saying something different....

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by MrFun
I'm waiting for the fourth reply in the row, KrazyHorse.

Talking to yourself??

It doesn't bother me a bit that corporations are regarded as seperate entities.
I don't think it's a bad idea, I think partly it's "why the hell can't I get in on this?"

Envy?

[KrazyHorse]

orange

No, what I'm saying is that liability among individuals (slaveowners) tends, legally, to be lost after one or two generations.

Corporations remain liable just about forever.

The restrictions on individual liability don't pertain to individuals seeking compensation, as far as I know.

[David Floyd]

Another problem is this. Slaves were property, and all Aetna did was insure property - all quite legal, and they committed no crime.

What the lawsuit, in fact, says is that Aetna should have made a moral judgment that would have costed the company to lose money at the time, which is absolutely preposterous.
Say in 200 years, we decide that conscription is wrong, and as bad as slavery. Should descendants of draftees from WW2 have a claim against the US government for doing something that, by the laws of that time, was perfectly legal (well, conscription isn't but that's a different argument)? That makes no more sense than giving descendants of slaves (more) handouts.

Oh, I know - let's take it further. Every one of us who had a descendant die in a foreign war should sue the government for their immoral act of waging war!

[KrazyHorse]

Are you drunk? You completely missed the whole ex post facto debate on the second (third? fourth?) page.

[orange]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Another problem is this. Slaves were property, and all Aetna did was insure property - all quite legal, and they committed no crime.

What the lawsuit, in fact, says is that Aetna should have made a moral judgment that would have costed the company to lose money at the time, which is absolutely preposterous.
Say in 200 years, we decide that conscription is wrong, and as bad as slavery. Should descendants of draftees from WW2 have a claim against the US government for doing something that, by the laws of that time, was perfectly legal (well, conscription isn't bad that's a different argument)? That makes no more sense than giving descendants of slaves (more) handouts.

Oh, I know - let's take it further. Every one of us who had a descendant die in a foreign war should sue the government for their immoral act of waging war!

I can't believe I'm saying this...

...but...

:takes deep breath:

I agree with David Floyd

[DinoDoc]

Re: Third Reply in a Row

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Corporations, meanwhile, have continuous legal existence. Unless there's an episode of bankruptcy or something similar, the corporation remains responsible for its own actions.

Would the fact that one of the corporations being sued was only formed in 1978 have anything to do with its standing in this suit?