Slavery reparations

[KrazyHorse]

Re: That's the way it usually works in the class action cases I know of.

Originally posted by DinoDoc


Then no money should be paid out at all unless and until the plaintiffsdemonstrate that a wrong was committed against the ancestors of the entire class by the defendants.

I don't think that's the way it works. Could be wrong. Do you have a link to the law in question?

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Which troll would that be?

Sava... he only seems to appear when Wiggy is AWOL (or banned). Now we just have to figure out whose DL Wiggy is...

[DinoDoc]

Re: Re: That's the way it usually works in the class action cases I know of.

Originally posted by Guynemer
Am I reading too much into this, or are you expressing at least a measure of support for my proposal?

No, I'm ideaologically opposed to the very concept of ex post facto civil trials. It just seems that if Farmer-Paellmann was going to seriously undertake this farce, she would have done it the "right" way.

[Guynemer]

Re: Re: Re: That's the way it usually works in the class action cases I know of.

Originally posted by DinoDoc


No, I'm ideaologically opposed to the very concept of ex post facto civil trials. It just seems that if Farmer-Paellmann was going to seriously undertake this farce, she would have done it the "right" way.

Fair enough. As long as we understand each other.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
I don't think that's the way it works. Could be wrong. Do you have a link to the law in question?

No, I only have the experience of being involved in two class action lawsuits which required the plaintiffs to fill out numerous forms to prove that they were actually a member of the class and to what extent the wrong had affected them.

[Tuberski]

I'm only adding this so the thread gets to 200.

[Ramo]

No, I'm ideaologically opposed to the very concept of ex post facto civil trials.

Why? Would you oppose Jews or Gypsies suing the crap out of Germans who stole from their families during the Third Reich?

Just because the state condones an action, that doesn't morally justify it, nor should that make the action irreversible.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ramo
Why? Would you oppose Jews or Gypsies suing the crap out of Germans who stole from their families during the Third Reich?

International law and US law are two different things, Ramo.

PS I still want to know where I can see the summaries of those cases you mentioned.

[David Floyd]

Why? Would you oppose Jews or Gypsies suing the crap out of Germans who stole from their families during the Third Reich?

Actually yes, I would - I oppose any punishment for Holocaust perpetrators at all because of the ex post facto argument.

[Ramo]

International law and US law are two different things, Ramo.

Why should domestic or international law make a difference (or for that matter, one country's domestic law and another's)? We're talking about ideology here, aren't we?

So, would you ideologically oppose German Jews or Gypsies doing such a thing in their own legal system?

I still want to know where I can see the summaries of those cases you mentioned.

I don't know where to find good summaries. But you can find the actual cases decisions at: www.findlaw.com

[Adam Smith]

A few comments.

The $1.4 tril, as I understand it, was apparently the value of all the unpaid labor done by slaves. The defendant corporations are clearly only responsible for part of this. And I have not seen anything yet linking the plaintiffs to the actions of the companies.

How much damages are due? The economic damages are not the total value of unpaid labor, but rather the total value of lost savings. The companies made profits by writing insurance policies and saved money by using slave labor. The slaves, had they been free, would have earned money from their labor. But if they were free they also would have had expenses. So if you are arguing that slavery restricted the ability to accumulate capital, then the loss to the plaintiffs is the value of lost savings. If $1.4 tril is the preesnt value of all slave labor, then the actual damages would be considerably less.

Mr. Fun:

I cannot believe you cannot see how slavery affects today's generation of black families.

For the reasons outlined above I think you vastly overstate the effect of slavery on African Americans six generations after the fact. It is quite clear that more recent factors, such as the effect of 1960's welfare programs on family structure, had a much greater effect. Moreover it is also quite clear that many black families have experienced social mobility in the last 40 years. For example, consider the huge numbers of blacks who have moved out of cities and into suburbs. With this degree of mobility for many blacks, it would seem unlikey that problems can all be traced to someting which happened six generations ago.

Lastly, my grandparents spoke no English and lived in a company-owned coal mining town where they received below-market wages and bought food from the company store at monopoly prices. How much should I sue the company for?

[KrazyHorse]

As much as you can get.

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by DinoDoc


International law and US law are two different things, Ramo.

What of German Jews? The German government robbed 'em blind, but it wasn't illegal for them to do it. Can they be sued to recover their belongings? (EDIT--Ramo posted this just before I did... ****er.)


DF--Wow. Speechless. However, Mr. Emerson has this to say: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."

[Ramo]

Actually yes, I would - I oppose any punishment for Holocaust perpetrators at all because of the ex post facto argument.

What argument? I consider the phrase an irrational, inconsistent buzzword like "national sovereignty."

[David Floyd]

Ramo, Guy, I also believe that "following orders" is an even more valid defense, because it is unfair for us to make moral judgments in hindsight, in the case of soldiers following orders that they could get shot or imprisoned for disobeying.