I already clarified that I have already read several of his other pieces of the same topic (yes, yes I should have said so in the original reply). Unless he has modified his positions since then (no clue when he wrote the older ones) I see no need to listen to it.
none of us Blockheads can possibly concede the point until you quote us wrong.
That doesn’t make sense either. Any net value the slaves added to the land has already been purchased fair and square. Slaveowners owe their slaves damages for false imprisonment. If you never were a slave, you aren’t owed anything.
Reparations to descendants of slaves is equivalent to suing a tortfeasor’s grandson for the better position you’d be in if the original tortfeasor hadn’t negligently killed your grandfather.
Here’s one (which I haven’t read yet) http://www.springerlink.com/content/03qtp76w7m472010/fulltext.html
no its different.
the latter tries to attach a value to future earnings teh grandfather never got to earn and pass onto his kids.
the former says that actual earning the grandfather was owed when he died is indeed owed to the grandfather and if there is evidence that the grandfather willed it (his possessions) to his descendants (and not third parties, like friends or charities) then there is a definite case for transferring the stolen property to its rightful owners.
How so? The slaves would have title to the plantation, but since they are dead, the title goes to their descendants. Thus, the descendant of the slaveowner would not have title to the plantation, and would have relinquish control to the descendants of the slaves.
So because Uncle Ben worked the cotton fields, his descendants get the cotton fields and the house? Why?
There are too many variables for it to ever work, even if it were desirable. After 1865, my family allowed several older ex-slaves to live out their golden years on the plantation. Does the free room and board count as reparations of sorts?
Can you answer my questions or are you going to just keep spewing garbage?
Actually I am going to ignore you from now on. I will dig up a source for Uknig later, but I dont care what you have to say at all.
good game you lose
Nah, you started with the adhoms and name calling. Now a serious question is ‘spewing garbage’ to you.
You still didn’t answer these questions. Me ad homming you again is no excuse for your disdain of logic.
Answer my own questions?
Irregardless of whether you consider the tribal lands of the Indians to have been properly homesteaded, the fact of the matter is that they, for the most part, cannot prove the bounds of their claims(remember, the current owner must have his claim proven illegitimate).
Are you really that obtuse? Please explain how Block’s reparations theory supports Robert Mugabe’s actions. What you have done here is make a bunch of fantastic and unfounded assertions then stomp your feet when you are found out.
OK, the Mugabe example was hyperbole. Yet he does support the concept of land reform (which reparations is related to) in a similar fashion. Sure he probably wouldnt want a government doing it, but he doesnt oppose the principle.
‘Found out’ ? No, I stand by my examples even if you dislike them. Having just re-read two of his essays on the topic, I still conclude that the examples given are plausible under his theory, although he says much less about the indian issue.
Perhaps. If the house was built using money gained from the cotton fields, or if the house was built by the slaves. Anyway, this is only a hypthetical. Give me a real example to work with.
No. If I kick you in the balls then give you a dollar, that is not reparations, unless you agreed to that one dollar. Besides, the descendants of the slaves would have to prove that you ancestors enslaved the slaves, which is probably impossible by now. So I don’t know why you’re getting so defensive.
Define “land reform”. Block just means returning stolen property, when sufficient evidence is provided of course. Your assertions are still entirely nonsensical.
Well but this was after the fact. They were no longer prisoners - they could have left at any time, and I dont believe they were servants. By them staying of their own free will, they accepted that as ‘payment’. Thankfully, in real life relations between many slaves and slaveowners after the war wasnt as bad as you might think. My proof? The ex-slaves followed my family when they moved from Virginia to Indiana in the 1880s (the ex-slaves were left behind), so they must not have been that bitter.
Your ancestors’ slaves may have been officially manumitted, but justice was never carried out. Your kin were kidnappers, if not murderers and rapists. The slaves followed as a self-defensive measure because the environment for justice completely ignored the slave owners’ crimes and aided the transition to soft-slavery (review the following 50+ years of black history.)