CA Reparations Task Force

[Politesse]

There is no debt as such.

Bullshit. You steal, you owe.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I was going to respond at length but loading that Daily Mail article has caused my computer to be attacked.

 

[TSwizzle]

Seems odd that blacks are going to have to chip in for their own reparations.

They, too, are citizens.

There is no debt as such.

Bullshit. You steal, you owe.

Steal are not you are on the hook to pay!

 

[Politesse]

Seems odd that blacks are going to have to chip in for their own reparations.

They, too, are citizens.

There is no debt as such.

Bullshit. You steal, you owe.

Steal are not you are on the hook to pay!

When a government screws over its citizens, it has to recompense them for those damages.

You would want the ability to press suit against the government, if you felt that you were the wronged party.

If, for instance, your horror scenario came true and San Francisco actually did pass a law requiring "white people" to give money to "black people", are you telling me conservatives wouldn't demand compensation for the monies lost, when the Supreme Court inevitably overturned the law later? If the state steals from you unfairly, you're due compensation.

Yes, some of that money almost certainly comes from taxpayers. And no, that's not entirely fair, which is why the states shouldn't break the law in the first place. But you're blaming the justice system for the inequity, rather than the criminals.

 

[Politesse]

It's so funny to me, that Republicans had the reputation of being the "fiscal responsibility" party back when I was growing up. These days, it seems like a fundamental inability to understand the most basic concepts of taxation, budgeting, and investment in future gains are hardline requirements of any GOP voter.

 

[TSwizzle]

When a government screws over its citizens, it has to recompense them for those damages.

You would want the ability to press suit against the government, if you felt that you were the wronged party.

So the people that got screwed over also need to pay themselves for being screwed over?

You make no sense.

 

[Politesse]

When a government screws over its citizens, it has to recompense them for those damages.

You would want the ability to press suit against the government, if you felt that you were the wronged party.

So the people that got screwed over also need to pay themselves for being screwed over?

You make no sense.

That's because you don't understand how governments work, on a very fundamental level. You have to pay the taxes, no matter what happens. The only thing that is in our power to effect is how government moneys are distirbuted, and to what end.

Are you saying that if you sucessfully sued the government for a breach of your personal rights, you would refuse the check, because an infinitessimal fraction of it was derived from your tax dollars?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I see the "Money DOES grow on trees" MMT meme out in full force in this thread. Progressives are their own worst enemy if they pitch softballs like this for the Right-of-Lenin Party to hit out of the park.

I actually half agree with you, but I do think that we are likely looking at 1 suggestion and the right-wing media machine is turning that into something that is going to happen as a likelihood.

Meanwhile -- Will someone save me from a bout with Don't Be Evil, Inc. and explain "reparations" to me?

I am not going to into all of the concept of reparations. I will say as I wrote before (before I was taken out of context and a tangent made) that large entities that have existed for many years are often held to account, sometimes even voluntarily for past wrongs.

So, there's an Accountable Entity. Then, there are Victims. At present, I am only discussing the A.E., not the V. This is because an argument is being recycled (not by you) by TSwizzle that was refuted until Oleg took it out of context. So, for example, the Catholic Church, the US government, Dow Corning, and Germany are all examples of large entities committing past wrongs who have made reparations through class action suits, through contractual judgments in the case of US govt vs Native American treaties from centuries ago, or in the case of the Holocaust. In each case, general coffers are accessed and many individuals affected by the reparations might not have participated in whatever wrong was done, but the entity is held to account. So, the argument "But I didn't do anything" doesn't hold too much weight. It's the entity that benefited in some way or did some wrong and there are certainly also individuals associated to the entity who did some wrong, but there's a general financial structure belonging to the entity that is used to pool resources and give out money.

The A.E. under discussion ought to be San Francisco. The extent to which the recent incarnation of the entity San Francisco was responsible for or participated in slavery is unknown to me. I don't think that when SF was founded in 1776, something to do with the Spanish Empire ought to be something that American SF, a new entity, is held to. The Gold Rush of 1849 happened in SF. It was probably a US territory by then. Many US southerners brought their slaves to work in mines. But by 1850, California became a state and declared itself free. Slavery was still about a little bit, even though illegal, but also escaped slaves were not chased down by law enforcement because it was illegal. Many whites didn't like slavery for economic reasons as it gave wealthy an unfair advantage to mine. So, it's a complicated issue...and it was soon after that we had the civil war and Emancipation. So there's some history there, but...

I think expecting S.F. to hold very large accountability for African American slave history doesn't quite match to the relatively small overlapping window of time but especially of location where slavery of African Americans may have been permitted there.

If there were to be some accountability of S.F., then I'd expect it to be very small relative to putting the entire US govt and Southern states up for reparations.

The next part of things is the Victims and because we are discussing modern times, yes, it absolutely presents many problems. The direct Victims were obviously slaves at that time. Their next line of descendants also--I believe they ought to have been entitled to something. The way I think of it, though, is that each following generation is entitled to less and less because they have a myriad of other ancestors. And this only, if none of the ancestors have already been compensated. So, I don't see how both a grandfather, father, and son ought to all receive the exact same reparation from slavery.

---------
All that said, and I think slavery ought to be a very small part of this whole thing, the reparations are actually about a number of other things, too, that San Francisco did participate in. Some of these things may be inferred from going to the Daily Mail website and looking at criteria for accepting someone as a person who could receive reparations. I can't go to the website right now because it attacks my computer for some reason.

I _do_ think S.F. could be an A.E. for specific things S.F. took part in within S.F. history that are listed. And I _do_ think that those specific things inferred and requiring documented evidence make sense for victims.

Do rich blacks get reparations?

To the extent that they were affected by past discriminations etc and can show some reasonable evidence of being in those groups _OR_ that they are descendant of such person receiving some portion of damage appropriate to their descendancy from an Accountable Entity, such as S.F., why not?

How about poor Natives or Hispanics?

I believe there was some kind of thing in documented evidence portion of requirements that said something about marginalized groups in housing in S.F. So, if a person in such group could show that (I cant go to the website), then yes, if they were living in S.F. affected by that housing discrimination or whatever it was.

Now, there's another issue. So, S.F. (California generally) used to belong to Mexico. And at some point in time Mexico was allowing enslavement of Native Americans. So, Mexico presumably would be the Accountable Entity for enslavement of Native Americans.

Barack Obama's father was NOT descended from American slaves. Ignoring wealth/income, would he be entitled? And don't forget that he IS allegedly descended from an American black slave ... on his MOTHER's side! Are "reparations" just a boondoggle for the Genealogy industry?

I don't think that what you are saying is proved. In any case, there are requirements listed at the website and even if he had met this one (which I don't think he can prove), I don't think he could get 2 requirements met which was needed according to the documentation. Also, with respect to just the issue of slavery, again, I reiterate that I don't believe S.F. is the best A.E. for that and if they ought to be, their part ought to be relatively small in payout.

My Presbyterian ancestors fled Northern Ireland due to violent attacks by TomC's Catholic ancestors. Should I also be entitled to reparations?

If I had a couple of Viking ancestors which is likely, they probably did something to your ancestors. This was like 50 generations ago. 50 generations ago I had 2^50 ancestors. Same as you. If one of my ancestors did something to one of yours, the fraction of my gain in comparison to the fraction of your damage is quite small. But discussing individuals as opposed to large entities that may exist in perpetuity is a different sort of question. We could, perhaps, instead discuss Catholic Church policy and gains of the general coffers and Catholic reparations. But there was probably also a lot of back and forth damage by multiple entities, so much as to confuse reparations, another different issue.

I would endorse targeted public spending in inner cities. But just dropping cash from helicopters into a war zone dominated by guns and crack cocaine ... Aren't we afraid the money will be spent on guns and crack?

Thank you Dave Chapelle.

 

[TSwizzle]

When a government screws over its citizens, it has to recompense them for those damages.

You would want the ability to press suit against the government, if you felt that you were the wronged party.

So the people that got screwed over also need to pay themselves for being screwed over?

You make no sense.

That's because you don't understand how governments work, on a very fundamental level. You have to pay the taxes, no matter what happens. The only thing that is in our power to effect is how government moneys are distirbuted, and to what end.

Since California and San Francisco are financially destitute, reparations will no doubt have to be funded through additional taxes. Which likely will have to go on a ballot measure and will likely get defeated anyway so it's a moo point.
But you claim "that if YOUR government screwed YOU over"; YOU need to pay the new government in order for the new government to pay YOU the reparations is just perverse and unjust. Who in their right mind would go along with that nonsense?

 

[Oleg]

When a government screws over its citizens, it has to recompense them for those damages.

 

[TomC]

There is no debt as such.

Bullshit. You steal, you owe.

Your attachment to group culpability isn't something I share. If I didn't steal anything, I don't owe anything.
If a government prior to my existence did something wrong, that's not on me.
Tom

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

If a government prior to my existence did something wrong, that's not on me.

The US government still exists.

 

[TomC]

If a government prior to my existence did something wrong, that's not on me.

The US government still exists.

You know what else?

I've been paying local property taxes my entire adult life. The bulk of it funds the local public schools.

I've never been enrolled in one. I've never enrolled anybody in one. My education was bankrolled by my parents, who not only paid for the local public schools but also popped for tuition for their own kids.

I don't have a problem with that. I want to live in a world with more educated people. So I'm OK with the wealth transfer from me to parents who popped out the babies.

What I resent is the premise that people should get cash payouts due to their race, and only due to their race.
Tom

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

If a government prior to my existence did something wrong, that's not on me.

The US government still exists.

You know what else?

I've been paying local property taxes my entire adult life. The bulk of it funds the local public schools.

I've never been enrolled in one. I've never enrolled anybody in one. My education was bankrolled by my parents, who not only paid for the local public schools but also popped for tuition for their own kids.

I don't have a problem with that. I want to live in a world with more educated people. So I'm OK with the wealth transfer from me to parents who popped out the babies.

What I resent is the premise that people should get cash payouts due to their race, and only due to their race.
Tom

Then why did you bring up the birth of the US govt then change the subject? It's a very confused argument.

To address your completely new point, I don't think the requirements were only about race. I can't access the Daily Mail wesite, but other criteria were there. I think?

 

[TomC]

Then why did you bring up the birth of the US govt then change the subject? It's a very confused argument.

You might be confused because you think I brought up the birth of the U.S. government?

My point is that whatever people got up to that didn't involve me or decisions I made don't leave me with an obligation.

On the other hand, I'm fine with funding government stuff that doesn't directly benefit me. I expect it work towards the benefit of everyone. That doesn't include settling old scores with other people's money.
Tom

 

[bilby]

I was going to respond at length but loading that Daily Mail article has caused my computer to be attacked.

Count yourself lucky you didn't read it - having your brain attacked is even worse.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Then why did you bring up the birth of the US govt then change the subject? It's a very confused argument.

You might be confused because you think I brought up the birth of the U.S. government?

My point is that whatever people got up to that didn't involve me or decisions I made don't leave me with an obligation.

On the other hand, I'm fine with funding government stuff that doesn't directly benefit me. I expect it work towards the benefit of everyone. That doesn't include settling old scores with other people's money.
Tom

Then why did you bring up the birth of the US govt then change the subject? It's a very confused argument.

You might be confused because you think I brought up the birth of the U.S. government?

Well, here is what you wrote:
"If a government prior to my existence did something wrong, that's not on me."

Let's say you were born in 1980. The govt had done some bad shit in Viet Nam prior to that. Let's say they decided to send some reparation money to help rebuild in 1982. It's the same US govt that existed prior to your birth in 1980 as the US govt that existed after your birth in 1982. There's nothing wrong with the US govt deciding to make amends in 1982.

Now, to the last part of your sentence "that's not on me." No one would be blaming you for Viet Nam. No one would be saying it was on you, but instead on the legal, long-lasting entity called the US govt who existed before you and existed after your birth.

My point is that whatever people got up to that didn't involve me or decisions I made don't leave me with an obligation.

You seem to be confusing your individual obligation with the obligation's to make amends of a long-lasting legal entity.

On the other hand, I'm fine with funding government stuff that doesn't directly benefit me. I expect it work towards the benefit of everyone. That doesn't include settling old scores with other people's money.

So, to be clear, you'd be against reparations to slaves directly on the day after Emancipation in 1865 because even though the US govt as a legal entity allowed slavery, specific individual Americans were against it.

Are you also against the Catholic Church paying sex abuse victims on the same grounds?

 

[bilby]

50 generations ago I had 2^50 ancestors.

No, you didn't. 2^50 is at least five orders of magnitude more people than have ever lived.

I suspect some in-breeding may have occurred.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

50 generations ago I had 2^50 ancestors.

No, you didn't. 2^50 is at least five orders of magnitude more people than have ever lived.

I suspect some in-breeding may have occurred.

Well, yeah. I knew that but the essential part of the point is valid and understood.

 

[laughing dog]

The notion that reparations is an example of “settling a score “ is ridiculous: reparations are not done to punish.