Suing Cumberbatch for reparations

Quote: Gandler

Your first point is where the problem lies. We are not dealing with tangible stolen property (which on its own is legally complex once crossing generational and geographical boundaries, I mean heck, just about every museum has stolen goods by that logic, it is not as simple as taking something back, sometimes this happens, but the child will never have to pay cash reparations if it is not possible). But, this case is referencing many generations removed ancestors. And, the property in question is "lost wealth" due to his family running a plantation there 200 years ago.

The original victim being dead absolutely matters. But, what matters more is the original perpetrator being dead, and the property being long gone from the family. They do not own the plantation (and have not for 200 years). I do not know who the current owner is, but he is not the one being sued (I am not sure that is even the right term, but I am just going to use it for simplicity).

If my dad drove drunk and crashed into a building causing irreparable damage (let's say he was uninsured), and died, am I alone (as the only child) responsible for the demolition and rebuilding of the structure? Of course not, at least not in any Western Country (I am sure you can find some obscure eastern examples where crimes still pass with family....) But, this is not how it works in the civilized world. Sure you can take civil action against his estate and such before it is probated, but that is the same as taking action against him (not the children, other than in the sense the children may get slightly less inheritance). Same with debt and any other legal concept (even though some banks have a history of trying to guilt trip children into paying parents debt after death and probable, but that is a separate issue without any legal ground and is sleazy collection tactics, which is essentially what is happening in this case....).

To your third point you can never fairly adjudicate history, we are relying on conflicting records from hundreds of years ago where each side has motivation to either lie or bend the truth. You are also dealing with a different time, and I don't mean socially, I mean in the context of currency that is no longer around, and labor values were far different. How can you possibly translate to modern value? (You can't)

Popularity and practicality do matter with any policy or law. If something is unpopular and essentially impossible by any reasonable metric, pushing for it is not wise.


I mean honestly what is your end game here? To go through all of human history and attempt to write every wrong ever recorded (key word there is recorded)? And, to what end? A global reset?
Just seize all wealth and property, and distribute it to the people most deserving? Seize all educational credentials and award them out based on credentialing equality? It's a fair question. And who would be doing the seizing and distributing (my guess is they will make out very well)?

Quote: rxwine

Property being long gone; why does that matter? FTX CEO can't pay back what was lost. That doesn't make him less culpable.

Your father having an accident isn't a comparable example. The comparable example is you also profiting from the accident.

Things being hard to trace only is important if you literally can't figure out whether there is actual liability connected to the family. If you can't, you can't. Going through Trump's tax returns is a monster to investigate properly. Doesn't mean it should be ignored.

Finally, I can't agree dead doesn't matter. That you can show a family profited from the original offense is what manners. It may be impossible in most cases to show what you need to show to qualify for some reimbursement.

Quote: rxwine

Pretty sure we're just going to go around and around on this.

I actually have a bigger issue with conservatives' position against the idea of reparations as they go on about the importance of people earning what they have, but then leaping upon the idea they owe nothing if they advantaged from some past malfeasance.

Quote: DRich

I think one of the points being missed is if something wasn't illegal at the time, it is a different story. Slavery wasn't illegal at the time so should reparations have to be paid?

Quote:

Section 10 (with respect to state laws). In some nations that follow the Westminster system of government, such as the United Kingdom, ex post facto laws are possible, because the doctrine of parliamentary supremacy allows Parliament to pass any law it wishes.

Quote: rxwine

Pretty sure we're just going to go around and around on this.

I actually have a bigger issue with conservatives' position against the idea of reparations as they go on about the importance of people earning what they have, but then leaping upon the idea they owe nothing if they advantaged from some past malfeasance.

Quote: kenarman

With drugs we treat the gangs that import and bulk distribute the drugs as those with the most liability. The individual users and dealers are mostly ignored by the law. If we follow that logic for slaves then the bulk of the liability should lie with the other African tribes that originally captured them in Africa and the gangs that purchased them in Africa and transported them to N. America and ran the slave auctions would have the most liability. The individual users of the slaves would have little or no liability.

Do the descendants of the many black bosses that kept the slaves in line for the white owners also have to pay reparations?

Quote: rxwine

You’re equating slave owners with drug users? Personally, I’m not even sure if being a slave is second only to being murdered as an offense. Guess it depends on how lucky you are with your overseers.

Quote: kenarman

My post is just an example that shows that enforcement of laws and who is responsible varies greatly depending on circumstance.

How about murdering the plant. Will the next generations want reparations from you for killing the planet by burning fossil fuels? Will you voluntarily pay?