Then give back your land back to the nearest Indian. Give back any tax dollar you've ever benefited from greater than what you paid in. If that's your moral code, do it now.
The difference is that stealing -- the wanton rejection of ownership by force -- is a crime. You're seeking justice against a man who did not commit the crime. Ironically, the justice many here is proposing is the exact same thing as the crime.
If you buy a car and it turns out to have been stolen, and you're caught with it, you will lose it whether you are the one who stole it or not. The police will take it from you by force, and the fact that you committed no crime and had no knowledge of any crime being committed won't matter one bit. If someone else can prove legal ownership, you can kiss that car good-bye.
The problem with very old crimes, such as the land stolen from the natives by European settlers, is that there's not much in the way of evidence. The further problem is that the native people didn't title land to any person or group of people, and our justice system provides no way to deal with such disputes.
In the case of the art stolen from the Jew, the family may very well be able to prove rightful ownership, which would mean that the son of the person who stole and sold the art is in possession of stolen property. It's not his fault, but that doesn't change the fact that the money rightfully belongs to the estate of the deceased Jew.
If there's no clear evidence, as there sadly isn't in most of these cases, then we can't justify taking the money from the son of the alleged thief.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
Then give back your land back to the nearest Indian. Give back any tax dollar you've ever benefited from greater than what you paid in. If that's your moral code, do it now.
The difference is that stealing -- the wanton rejection of ownership by force -- is a crime. You're seeking justice against a man who did not commit the crime. Ironically, the justice many here is proposing is the exact same thing as the crime.
The primitive idea was territorial, and that still exists, on paper. The White folks took a primitive idea and made it Law. It's ridiculous. In my opinion nobody really owns anything of this earth, yet, that is not to say I wouldn't defend my own liveable space as my own.
The primitive idea was territorial, and that still exists, on paper. The White folks took a primitive idea and made it Law. It's ridiculous. In my opinion nobody really owns anything of this earth, yet, that is not to say I wouldn't defend my own liveable space as my own.
I completely agree with this, except that the latter half of your last sentence contradicts the former half.
If you buy a car and it turns out to have been stolen, and you're caught with it, you will lose it whether you are the one who stole it or not. The police will take it from you by force, and the fact that you committed no crime and had no knowledge of any crime being committed won't matter one bit. If someone else can prove legal ownership, you can kiss that car good-bye.
The problem with very old crimes, such as the land stolen from the natives by European settlers, is that there's not much in the way of evidence. The further problem is that the native people didn't title land to any person or group of people, and our justice system provides no way to deal with such disputes.
In the case of the art stolen from the Jew, the family may very well be able to prove rightful ownership, which would mean that the son of the person who stole and sold the art is in possession of stolen property. It's not his fault, but that doesn't change the fact that the money rightfully belongs to the estate of the deceased Jew.
If there's no clear evidence, as there sadly isn't in most of these cases, then we can't justify taking the money from the son of the alleged thief.
I'm going to assume from this that the answer to my question is "you can't prove it". I find this answer a bit surprising. One need only to look at history to understand that all of us have indirectly benefitted in some way from the crimes of our forefathers. You live where you live because someone before you slaughtered someone else.
And if benefit is the only necessarily standard of guilt in your moral code, you must immediately return your property to the sons and daughters of the slaughtered. For all those that support such a moral code, I'll leave this thread with a simple question:
Why do you still own anything? Why have you not given it all back?
I'm going to assume from this that the answer to my question is "you can't prove it". I find this answer a bit surprising. One need only to look at history to understand that all of us have indirectly benefitted in some way from the crimes of our forefathers. You live where you live because someone before you slaughtered someone else.
And if benefit is the only necessarily standard of guilt in your moral code, you must immediately return your property to the sons and daughters of the slaughtered. For all those that support such a moral code, I'll leave this thread with a simple question:
Why do you still own anything? Why have you not given it all back?
Nice post. That killing thing is a bitch.
As for the here and now, we can peaceably confer about our differences, and that says something.
Building a justice system around "social factors" is no different than building a justice system around body parts. Are we going to just start putting the axe murderer's arms in jail?
Bizarre as this might sound, I think this analogy would fit the argument for reparation exactly, if the murderer's arms be returned to the victim's children, if they were stolen from the victim's house: along with payment in compensation.
I know that sounds daft and nonsensical, but what I mean is...
What I mean is, in straight terms, we're talking about property law. Firstly, we're talking about reparation for confiscated West African lands, peoples and chattels, the details concerning which were recorded extensively by the English East India Company and equivalent private companies in Europe. Many of these records are preserved to this day, with names of all slaves and their owners meticulously documented, along with all data relating to how these slaves were used in labour.
Secondly, considering that human labour was commodified, to use a Marxian term, as a means of capitalist production, slaves' lives became property, and part of the real machinery of proto-Empire for European businessmen. Slaves and their labour became other people's property, every bit as much as the material they produced.
Their labour, as well as the money made in their transportation, created the wealth of dominant banks that thrive to this day. If you believe in capitalism, and inherited wealth, would you not like to see the sons and daughters get what the statute books (and a bit of DNA testing) show they're owed? Slave owners were compensated for their losses: why shouldn't the families of those who never received the wealth of their work?
In this sense, the issue is no longer about Blair apologising for the sins of English private companies from 1600 to the early nineteenth century, but about banks coughing up what is arguably owed to the families of slaves (and British subjects, importantly, since they were subservient to the monarch of the Realm). The problem is, have the banks actually got the stock behind the money, anymore, if such suits were pursued?
Now, going back to reborncareerist's point: what about those Africans who did deals with the slave traders. Umm, I think we'd be talking about a vaguer type of suit for personal damages here, rather than a more orthodox claim against loss of earnings? I'm not a lawyer, my brother is, but I'm just trying to think this through. I think the real issue of reparation would work on the lines of: "I can prove my great- great- great- great- etc was a slave bought by the British, and I have DNA evidence he came from such and such a place where trading was common. I have seen the statute books showing how much his labour made for certain parties. As a British subject, offered a passport and nationality as a Caribbean (originally of African descent and therefore part of the accumulated plunder of the Commonwealth), whilst under British rule and therefore automatically by right, before arriving in Britain in post-colonial times, I have a claim to inheritance, under British law."
Something like that, anyway. Someone who knows British law properly will put me right here, but I think that's how it goes.
I'm going to assume from this that the answer to my question is "you can't prove it". I find this answer a bit surprising. One need only to look at history to understand that all of us have indirectly benefitted in some way from the crimes of our forefathers. You live where you live because someone before you slaughtered someone else.
And if benefit is the only necessarily standard of guilt in your moral code, you must immediately return your property to the sons and daughters of the slaughtered. For all those that support such a moral code, I'll leave this thread with a simple question:
Why do you still own anything? Why have you not given it all back?
Your post that I originally replied to was, "The child of the thief, of course. Receiving an inheritance is not a crime. Stealing is." What I have been discussing is crime, not my moral code, which is largely irrelevant. There are legal standards for what constitutes stolen property. You may not like them, I don't care for some of them myself, but they are the laws under which we operate. All I am saying is that if you are in possession of something that can be conclusively proven to be the private property of another, you are in possession of stolen property, and that is a crime regardless of whether you were the one who stole it. It's a legal fact, there's really no disputing it. All I am saying is that under the law, if we take stolen cars away from people who didn't steal them, we should also take the proceeds of stolen paintings away from the people who didn't steal the paintings and return them to their rightful owners.
Now, if you want to discuss how to construct a society from the bottom up that deals with property issues in a way more suitable to you, that might make for a very interesting thread, but I think it's beyond the scope of this one.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
Your post that I originally replied to was, "The child of the thief, of course. Receiving an inheritance is not a crime. Stealing is." What I have been discussing is crime, not my moral code, which is largely irrelevant. There are legal standards for what constitutes stolen property. You may not like them, I don't care for some of them myself, but they are the laws under which we operate. All I am saying is that if you are in possession of something that can be conclusively proven to be the private property of another, you are in possession of stolen property, and that is a crime regardless of whether you were the one who stole it. It's a legal fact, there's really no disputing it. All I am saying is that under the law, if we take stolen cars away from people who didn't steal them, we should also take the proceeds of stolen paintings away from the people who didn't steal the paintings and return them to their rightful owners.
Now, if you want to discuss how to construct a society from the bottom up that deals with property issues in a way more suitable to you, that might make for a very interesting thread, but I think it's beyond the scope of this one.
How does this have any bearing on America today?
The Native Americans were allocated their reservations, and most are still there today.
Bizarre as this might sound, I think this analogy would fit the argument for reparation exactly, if the murderer's arms be returned to the victim's children, if they were stolen from the victim's house: along with payment in compensation.
I know that sounds daft and nonsensical, but what I mean is...
What I mean is, in straight terms, we're talking about property law. Firstly, we're talking about reparation for confiscated West African lands, peoples and chattels, the details concerning which were recorded extensively by the English East India Company and equivalent private companies in Europe. Many of these records are preserved to this day, with names of all slaves and their owners meticulously documented, along with all data relating to how these slaves were used in labour.
Secondly, considering that human labour was commodified, to use a Marxian term, as a means of capitalist production, slaves' lives became property, and part of the real machinery of proto-Empire for European businessmen. Slaves and their labour became other people's property, every bit as much as the material they produced.
Their labour, as well as the money made in their transportation, created the wealth of dominant banks that thrive to this day. If you believe in capitalism, and inherited wealth, would you not like to see the sons and daughters get what the statute books (and a bit of DNA testing) show they're owed? Slave owners were compensated for their losses: why shouldn't the families of those who never received the wealth of their work?
In this sense, the issue is no longer about Blair apologising for the sins of English private companies from 1600 to the early nineteenth century, but about banks coughing up what is arguably owed to the families of slaves (and British subjects, importantly, since they were subservient to the monarch of the Realm). The problem is, have the banks actually got the stock behind the money, anymore, if such suits were pursued?
Now, going back to reborncareerist's point: what about those Africans who did deals with the slave traders. Umm, I think we'd be talking about a vaguer type of suit for personal damages here, rather than a more orthodox claim against loss of earnings? I'm not a lawyer, my brother is, but I'm just trying to think this through. I think the real issue of reparation would work on the lines of: "I can prove my great- great- great- great- etc was a slave bought by the British, and I have DNA evidence he came from such and such a place where trading was common. I have seen the statute books showing how much his labour made for certain parties. As a British subject, offered a passport and nationality as a Caribbean (originally of African descent and therefore part of the accumulated plunder of the Commonwealth), whilst under British rule and therefore automatically by right, before arriving in Britain in post-colonial times, I have a claim to inheritance, under British law."
Something like that, anyway. Someone who knows British law properly will put me right here, but I think that's how it goes.
Comments
whats next? Can the Catholic church reclaim Constantinople?
The problem with very old crimes, such as the land stolen from the natives by European settlers, is that there's not much in the way of evidence. The further problem is that the native people didn't title land to any person or group of people, and our justice system provides no way to deal with such disputes.
In the case of the art stolen from the Jew, the family may very well be able to prove rightful ownership, which would mean that the son of the person who stole and sold the art is in possession of stolen property. It's not his fault, but that doesn't change the fact that the money rightfully belongs to the estate of the deceased Jew.
If there's no clear evidence, as there sadly isn't in most of these cases, then we can't justify taking the money from the son of the alleged thief.
The primitive idea was territorial, and that still exists, on paper. The White folks took a primitive idea and made it Law. It's ridiculous. In my opinion nobody really owns anything of this earth, yet, that is not to say I wouldn't defend my own liveable space as my own.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
I completely agree with this, except that the latter half of your last sentence contradicts the former half.
I'm going to assume from this that the answer to my question is "you can't prove it". I find this answer a bit surprising. One need only to look at history to understand that all of us have indirectly benefitted in some way from the crimes of our forefathers. You live where you live because someone before you slaughtered someone else.
And if benefit is the only necessarily standard of guilt in your moral code, you must immediately return your property to the sons and daughters of the slaughtered. For all those that support such a moral code, I'll leave this thread with a simple question:
Why do you still own anything? Why have you not given it all back?
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Nice post. That killing thing is a bitch.
As for the here and now, we can peaceably confer about our differences, and that says something.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Bizarre as this might sound, I think this analogy would fit the argument for reparation exactly, if the murderer's arms be returned to the victim's children, if they were stolen from the victim's house: along with payment in compensation.
I know that sounds daft and nonsensical, but what I mean is...
What I mean is, in straight terms, we're talking about property law. Firstly, we're talking about reparation for confiscated West African lands, peoples and chattels, the details concerning which were recorded extensively by the English East India Company and equivalent private companies in Europe. Many of these records are preserved to this day, with names of all slaves and their owners meticulously documented, along with all data relating to how these slaves were used in labour.
Secondly, considering that human labour was commodified, to use a Marxian term, as a means of capitalist production, slaves' lives became property, and part of the real machinery of proto-Empire for European businessmen. Slaves and their labour became other people's property, every bit as much as the material they produced.
Their labour, as well as the money made in their transportation, created the wealth of dominant banks that thrive to this day. If you believe in capitalism, and inherited wealth, would you not like to see the sons and daughters get what the statute books (and a bit of DNA testing) show they're owed? Slave owners were compensated for their losses: why shouldn't the families of those who never received the wealth of their work?
In this sense, the issue is no longer about Blair apologising for the sins of English private companies from 1600 to the early nineteenth century, but about banks coughing up what is arguably owed to the families of slaves (and British subjects, importantly, since they were subservient to the monarch of the Realm). The problem is, have the banks actually got the stock behind the money, anymore, if such suits were pursued?
Now, going back to reborncareerist's point: what about those Africans who did deals with the slave traders. Umm, I think we'd be talking about a vaguer type of suit for personal damages here, rather than a more orthodox claim against loss of earnings? I'm not a lawyer, my brother is, but I'm just trying to think this through. I think the real issue of reparation would work on the lines of: "I can prove my great- great- great- great- etc was a slave bought by the British, and I have DNA evidence he came from such and such a place where trading was common. I have seen the statute books showing how much his labour made for certain parties. As a British subject, offered a passport and nationality as a Caribbean (originally of African descent and therefore part of the accumulated plunder of the Commonwealth), whilst under British rule and therefore automatically by right, before arriving in Britain in post-colonial times, I have a claim to inheritance, under British law."
Something like that, anyway. Someone who knows British law properly will put me right here, but I think that's how it goes.
Now, if you want to discuss how to construct a society from the bottom up that deals with property issues in a way more suitable to you, that might make for a very interesting thread, but I think it's beyond the scope of this one.
How does this have any bearing on America today?
The Native Americans were allocated their reservations, and most are still there today.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Nicely thought-through, Mr. Finsbury.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
I'm going to go write a poem, or something.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.