Does Ron Paul support Reparations

Funny.

The thing about "African-Americans" is that the general population has 25-30% white genes and something like 10% Native American genes. So would they have to have a DNA analysis and the ones that were 50% black only get 50% reparations?

The whole concept of race as applied by the federal gov't is a sham. They call blonde, blue eyed German immigrants from Argentina - hispanics - and they get all the federal preferences. AFAIK if you start speaking Spanish and hold yourself out as a Hispanic for a reasonable period of time you too can become hispanic. LOL. There is NO objective test for race in the law. The liberals want this kept a deep dark secret.

I'm waiting for some white looking guy with 25% african, native american, or whatever genes to apply for some preference as an "african-american" then when it gets denied by the bureaucracy they get taken to court and he pulls out the DNA test. LOL.

DNA test in the US have shown there is a lot of - mixing - more white people than you would ever guess have native american, asian or african genes. I was reading the other day about some white guy that got tested and found out he was part asian, but he couldn't figure out how it happened.

Once again - RACE IS AN ARTIFICIAL CONSTRUCT.


No, reparations make total sense. A bunch of people who never owned slaves, paying money to people who never were slaves. What could be more logical? This issue should be a democrat party plank.

I did hear one proposal for reparations that I actually agree with. The suggestion was that reparations would be offered to anyone who wanted them, on the following condition: the reparation check would be handed over at the end of a one-way flight to Africa, and in exchange for the recipient's U.S. citizenship.
 
I hope Ron Paul isn't for it.... I like him for all of his opinions on things, That would be the only one so far i disagree on
 
Funny.

The thing about "African-Americans" is that the general population has 25-30% white genes and something like 10% Native American genes. So would they have to have a DNA analysis and the ones that were 50% black only get 50% reparations?

The whole concept of race as applied by the federal gov't is a sham. They call blonde, blue eyed German immigrants from Argentina - hispanics - and they get all the federal preferences. AFAIK if you start speaking Spanish and hold yourself out as a Hispanic for a reasonable period of time you too can become hispanic. LOL. There is NO objective test for race in the law. The liberals want this kept a deep dark secret.

I'm waiting for some white looking guy with 25% african, native american, or whatever genes to apply for some preference as an "african-american" then when it gets denied by the bureaucracy they get taken to court and he pulls out the DNA test. LOL.

DNA test in the US have shown there is a lot of - mixing - more white people than you would ever guess have native american, asian or african genes. I was reading the other day about some white guy that got tested and found out he was part asian, but he couldn't figure out how it happened.

Once again - RACE IS AN ARTIFICIAL CONSTRUCT.
Reminds me of the way the some guys in NY who can manage to claim some fraction of native American bloodline are allowed to open casinos. A lot opportunists are exploiting this. It's all total bullshit. The notion of race itself is bullshit and obsolete.
 
I hope Ron Paul isn't for it.... I like him for all of his opinions on things, That would be the only one so far i disagree on
There is no way on earth RP supports this. It's pure BS. Trust me. First it's RP is a racist and then it's RP supports reparations.
 
RP WOULD support reparations, for everyone

Sorry for the long post, but I'm trying to decide between a) casting a vote for RP, b) casting a vote for Kucinich, or c) staying home on election day (The other choices aren't worth considering at this point in our history.), and I think this issue of reparations may help me decide. Kucinich is for reparations based on moral reasons, and I agree with him on that and many other issues, but he doesn't have a practical plan to pay them. RP is a rational leader, knows his constitution and history, and just makes a lot of sense. Here's my take on the issue:

I don't think anyone seriously disputes that the government helped to seriously mess over whole generations of people who trace their ancestry to Africa. Through legislation and the direct actions of its agents, federal and state governments created and damaged a class of people who are still suffering the worst the country has to offer. When we talk about repairing that damage (paying reparations), some of us automatically think of punishment. I think that's a guilt reaction that gets in the way of solving the problem.

In the law, you can be liable for either negligent or intentional tort. (I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on boards such as this ;-]) An intentional tort may bring punitive damages, but you can still be liable for the damage you cause to someone else, whether you meant to or not. You can also be liable for the whole damage even though you only caused a part of it (joint and several liability). Punitive damages are not really part of the reparations debate, but at a minimum, the government is liable for real damages to a whole lot of people.

But what are those damages? Who do we pay and how much? Damages can only be awarded to survivors (spouses, dependents) for things like lost earning capacity, lost inheritance, etc. A good description of damages in this case would be diminished opportunities for 'blacks" in every area of American life, from birth onward; ie, health, education, job prospects, retirement prospects and so on.

But aren't the descendants of working class "whites" damaged (to a lesser degree, certainly) by the creation of a class of free and low-wage workers? That damage needs to be repaired, as well. We would all be better off if slavery and segregation hadn't happened. In fact, we are all continuing to suffer damages from the continuing crises of the class of people created and injured by the government. (The immigration debate brings up some interesting parallels in terms of unfair competition created by government action/inaction.) We would all be better off if the injury to that class were repaired and we could all compete equally. (Yes, there are many bad things for which the government is liable, but as they say in the law, "go get your own lawsuit!")

So if damages are measured as diminished opportunities, it makes sense to pay the damages by creating opportunities for people. How about free health care for whatever ails you, free education as high as you can go, no-interest loans to start your business, etc? But who do we pay? Well, how about everyone? For how long? Well, how about for as long as it took to create that injured class of people? Is that too long? Well, how about until the damage is obviously repaired and no one remembers that "blacks" were once injured by the government? Who pays? We taxpayers own the government and must pay.

Where does the money come from? RP has great proposals for reducing the size of government, which I why I want to vote for him. That $800 billion a year to maintain the empire is a good start. There are trillions more we could harness if necessary. I know RP wants to return that money to the taxpayers, where it rightfully belongs, but only after the government has paid its bills. I think reparations is a bill the government must pay before we can get the consensus necessary to move forward in this country. The constitution gives government all the authority needed to pay reparations in the manner described, and I think RP would support some version of this proposal.

If not, then my choice on election day is made a lot easier.
 
Sorry for the long post, but I'm trying to decide between a) casting a vote for RP, b) casting a vote for Kucinich, or c) staying home on election day (The other choices aren't worth considering at this point in our history.), and I think this issue of reparations may help me decide. Kucinich is for reparations based on moral reasons, and I agree with him on that and many other issues, but he doesn't have a practical plan to pay them. RP is a rational leader, knows his constitution and history, and just makes a lot of sense. Here's my take on the issue:

I don't think anyone seriously disputes that the government helped to seriously mess over whole generations of people who trace their ancestry to Africa. Through legislation and the direct actions of its agents, federal and state governments created and damaged a class of people who are still suffering the worst the country has to offer. When we talk about repairing that damage (paying reparations), some of us automatically think of punishment. I think that's a guilt reaction that gets in the way of solving the problem.

In the law, you can be liable for either negligent or intentional tort. (I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on boards such as this ;-]) An intentional tort may bring punitive damages, but you can still be liable for the damage you cause to someone else, whether you meant to or not. You can also be liable for the whole damage even though you only caused a part of it (joint and several liability). Punitive damages are not really part of the reparations debate, but at a minimum, the government is liable for real damages to a whole lot of people.

But what are those damages? Who do we pay and how much? Damages can only be awarded to survivors (spouses, dependents) for things like lost earning capacity, lost inheritance, etc. A good description of damages in this case would be diminished opportunities for 'blacks" in every area of American life, from birth onward; ie, health, education, job prospects, retirement prospects and so on.

But aren't the descendants of working class "whites" damaged (to a lesser degree, certainly) by the creation of a class of free and low-wage workers? That damage needs to be repaired, as well. We would all be better off if slavery and segregation hadn't happened. In fact, we are all continuing to suffer damages from the continuing crises of the class of people created and injured by the government. (The immigration debate brings up some interesting parallels in terms of unfair competition created by government action/inaction.) We would all be better off if the injury to that class were repaired and we could all compete equally. (Yes, there are many bad things for which the government is liable, but as they say in the law, "go get your own lawsuit!")

So if damages are measured as diminished opportunities, it makes sense to pay the damages by creating opportunities for people. How about free health care for whatever ails you, free education as high as you can go, no-interest loans to start your business, etc? But who do we pay? Well, how about everyone? For how long? Well, how about for as long as it took to create that injured class of people? Is that too long? Well, how about until the damage is obviously repaired and no one remembers that "blacks" were once injured by the government? Who pays? We taxpayers own the government and must pay.

Where does the money come from? RP has great proposals for reducing the size of government, which I why I want to vote for him. That $800 billion a year to maintain the empire is a good start. There are trillions more we could harness if necessary. I know RP wants to return that money to the taxpayers, where it rightfully belongs, but only after the government has paid its bills. I think reparations is a bill the government must pay before we can get the consensus necessary to move forward in this country. The constitution gives government all the authority needed to pay reparations in the manner described, and I think RP would support some version of this proposal.

Wait so if everyone is paying taxes to give everyone reparations... wouldnt the same be accomplished by everyone just keeping their taxes? Or do you support taking from the wealthy to give reparations to the working class whites and blacks? It just seems illogical and pointless to go through all this. Slavery happened. Its over. Taxing the rich to give to the poor is unconstitutional because it goes against the idea of an apportioned tax. And besides, how would we say who deserves what? Sure, some are born into the cycle of poverty and maybe "deserve" a helping hand via reparations, but others get themselves into a mess - do they deserve to take taxpayer dollars to help them get out of their tailspin - dollars that they might just use to buy more alcohol and drugs anyways? There are so many variables, and the whole premise behind this idea is flawed, and so many injustices in the process would occur, it would only serve to further divide America, and any moral justification for these reparations would be overshadowed by the resentment and divide among class lines it would ensure.

If not, then my choice on election day is made a lot easier.

Wait so you would actually base who you vote on in an election based on this one issue that isnt even a real issue at all? Huh??
 
Last edited:
Wait so if everyone is paying taxes to give everyone reparations... wouldnt the same be accomplished by everyone just keeping their taxes? Or do you support taking from the wealthy to give reparations to the working class whites and blacks? It just seems illogical and pointless to go through all this. Slavery happened. Its over.
Yeah, I guess if everybody had the same opportunities now, it'd be a pointless exercise, unless it were just a ritual to forgive ourselves and wash our hands of the past. That wouldn't be a bad idea. But we don't have the same opportunities, and it's no accident that more blacks have fewer opportunities. I just think we have to fix that problem before we can move past it as a country. Therein lies the logic and the point.

Taxing the rich to give to the poor is unconstitutional because it goes against the idea of an apportioned tax.
As I understand it, the constitutional reference to apportioned tax is about the government basing a state's tax bill on its population, so the more numerous a state's population, the more it payed the federal government in taxes. I don't think the constitution cares how a state apportions its tax bill among its population. So a state would be free to ask more of its richer citizens if it wanted to.

And besides, how would we say who deserves what? Sure, some are born into the cycle of poverty and maybe "deserve" a helping hand via reparations, but others get themselves into a mess - do they deserve to take taxpayer dollars to help them get out of their tailspin - dollars that they might just use to buy more alcohol and drugs anyways?
I'd guess we could give the free health care to sick people? Or the free education to people who wanted knowledge or specialized training? I'm not proposing cash payouts to anyone, just opportunities for everyone. And yeah, obviously someone hooked on alcohol or drugs needs help getting off them (it's a health care issue). Wouldn't it be great to see the country helping drug addicts get drug-free, regardless of their color, as a form of reparations??

There are so many variables, and the whole premise behind this idea is flawed, and so many injustices in the process would occur, it would only serve to further divide America, and any moral justification for these reparations would be overshadowed by the resentment and divide among class lines it would ensure.
What variables? What flawed premise? What injustices? What resentment? Class division exists now. I'm proposing taking some of the money we spend on empire and redirecting it to reparations for everyone until the damage is repaired.

Wait so you would actually base who you vote on in an election based on this one issue that isnt even a real issue at all? Huh??
Obviously it's a real issue to me. No, my decision is based first and foremost on who is willing and able to get this monster government in check. That's why I'm for RP and/or Kucinich only. But if we're going to turn the country (finally) in a new direction, it's going to take all of us pulling together with our whole energies. This is a long term redirection of government and culture that isn't going to get done over the course of 1 or 2 or 5 administrations. I simply don't think we can do that successfully without addressing some painful historical errors. So ultimately the decision is based on who has the greater chance of success.
 
All I can say is if my money gets taken from me and given to some black person just because they are black, I will be pissed as all fucking hell. I am tired of my money being taken and given to people who don't deserve it because they did not work for it, I did.
 
My family was black but it became spanish due all the mixing. Can I get reparations?

Now, what if you know a Black Peruvian guys, how will you call it? African-Peruvian? what if he is american now?

African-peruvian-American?
 
What variables? What flawed premise? What injustices? What resentment? Class division exists now. I'm proposing taking some of the money we spend on empire and redirecting it to reparations for everyone until the damage is repaired.

Like socrates, i will first respond with a question.

What money? What damage? How will money repair anything?

You see, the flawed premise is simply that these less fortunate people somehow deserve the money of the taxpayers who have money. The flawed premise is that somehow money will repair something that may have never been commited by the person giving the money, and may never have been targeted at the person receiving the money. It is in no way my fault that i might happen to be of a family line that may have owned slaves (i doubt it, simply using a what-if). Why should I, if i have worked my way up through the torrent of government regulations, taxation, etc, have to give money to a stranger i never met and have never done anything to? The flawed premise is that it is somehow the government's money, when you forget government owns very little - maybe a few natural resources, but otherwise, all government wealth is taken from the people via taxation. Essentially what you are doing is forcing someone who has never commited any social or racial injustice to give money to someone who, more often than not, has never been the target of said racial or social injustice, or at least never to the degree that would require any sort of payment (maybe called nigger once or twice by a whitie).

Then you get into the whole gray area of "what is race"? Race as defined by government is vague and often a gray area. Sometimes, you can be a certain race if you have only 1/4th or even 1/16 of that so-called "race" in your blood, but even then, theres no way to prove that other than old birth records. My great grandfather's birth certificate said "nigra" on it. Perhaps his father was a slave. I demand reparations then because one of my ancestors may have been a slave because he was part black and thus has automatically been the target of racial injustice. Oh whats that you say? I'm obviously white (besides the fact that i have curlier hair than most black people), so i shouldnt get reparations. Well then here we go again, discriminating on the basis of skin color - i don't get reparations because im neither poor nor "black" by the definition of the state.

Injustices - do you honestly think everyone who deserves money will get money? Do you honestly think everyone who is taxed higher because they are wealthier will deserve that forced redistribution of wealth? What if their great grandparents were abolitionists? Do they then deserve that forced taking of their own hard earned money to give to some stranger they've never met? What about the different poor/black people who receive money? Who deserves more than others? What if someone just worked themselves out of poverty SOMEHOW even with the pressures of price inflation and heavy taxation in the system that are the real problem, and is now a lower middle class citizen.... does he deserve less money than the person who is a poor bum in the streets who was an alcoholic and got kicked out by his wife? Does that said bum deserve my payment of his medical bills because of the poor choices he made? Government has never proven to be very efficient before, why would reparations be any different? Half the money would get siphoned off by bureaucracy anyway. If you want to give a black person your own money, by all means do so by your own will, to placate your own ego. I gave a black bum in the street 3 bucks the other day to help him pay for lunch. He'll probably just buy alcohol with it, but thats ok, i still feel good about myself. But i did it of my own accord.

The problem facing most black people today is a culmination of socioeconmic conditions that have ALOT to do with big government. I'm from connecticut, and i lived 2 towns away from hartford, one of the worst school districts in the nation. THe schools are almost 100% black and latino. Whats the dealio?? Well i'd say the two biggest issues are that the schools suck for reasons that have nothing to do with race or the white man holding them down, and everything to do with bureaucracy, corruption, teachers unions (oh god i said it!), and the school system we have in America today on the whole. It also doesn't help that most of these kids probably deal with violence in some form every day. I know i sure wasn't holding them down, i went there to tutor at elementary and middle schools every week. But under your flawed premise, where every richer individual must pay up because of some "debt" to the black race, the individual is ignored. All my contributions and the time i put in with these kids, not because i felt like patronizing them or because i felt like i owed them anything, but because i genuinely cared, means nothing under a system where the collective is viewed as being above the individual in importance, and thus i would be taxed for reparations simply because i am in a higher income bracket, which may or may not be because I am white (id pick the latter).

In short, Ron would not support reparations because it perpetuates groupthink and racism in the form of groupthink, and hurts the individual taxpayer. Ron would support a utilitarian system where the government gets off EVERYONE'S shoulders so EVERYONE has an opportunity at a better life. Sound money is, of course, the best way to create a system where everyone is better off, and Ron seems to be the only candidate even hinting at this issue, much less championing it. There are alot more issues to decide between kucinich and Paul on, issues that are, you know, actuallly talked about. They are very different, evenif they are both honest. Kucinich is honest, sure, but his America would be an honest-to-God social democracy with no guns and free love and happy flower children everywhere, right? Look, kucinich is not a bad guy, but he falls far short of Ron Paul in reigning in big government. Kucinich may reign in the empire building, but he would dramatically increase the social spending at the cost of individual prosperity that Ron would seek to return to all people.

Besides, we already pay taxes for welfare. I think that is enough in the way of reparations.

What resentment?

Answer:

All I can say is if my money gets taken from me and given to some black person just because they are black, I will be pissed as all fucking hell. I am tired of my money being taken and given to people who don't deserve it because they did not work for it, I did.
 
Last edited:
Sigh, I don't know why I'm bothering contributing to this nonsense but...

If you really want reparations, the only possible way is to get the records of all the slave owners and the slaves from the time of abolishment. Then, through genealogical records, connect those whose ancestors were slaves and those whose ancestors were slave-holders. Using financial records of the time, divvy up the current slave holder's ancestor's assets and give it only to the current slave's ancestors. You would of course have to only include the assets at the time, plus the recompense for lost interest. Also, you would have to account for inflation.

Any other form of reparations is just as unjust as slavery was! (If this offends you, keep in mind, I don't attempt to quantify injustice... theft = slavery for my own philosophy of justice and liberty.) And honestly, after this much time, the costs versus the outcome would probably not be worth it. However, if someone really wanted to go through these steps, and we had a country that really believed in the philosophy of property rights, then we could see some reparations money in the form of a lawsuit.... but I wouldn't hold my breath.
 
Sigh, I don't know why I'm bothering contributing to this nonsense but...

If you really want reparations, the only possible way is to get the records of all the slave owners and the slaves from the time of abolishment. Then, through genealogical records, connect those whose ancestors were slaves and those whose ancestors were slave-holders. Using financial records of the time, divvy up the current slave holder's ancestor's assets and give it only to the current slave's ancestors. You would of course have to only include the assets at the time, plus the recompense for lost interest. Also, you would have to account for inflation.

Any other form of reparations is just as unjust as slavery was! (If this offends you, keep in mind, I don't attempt to quantify injustice... theft = slavery for my own philosophy of justice and liberty.) And honestly, after this much time, the costs versus the outcome would probably not be worth it. However, if someone really wanted to go through these steps, and we had a country that really believed in the philosophy of property rights, then we could see some reparations money in the form of a lawsuit.... but I wouldn't hold my breath.

Oh yeah the practiciality and actual implementation of it is something else i was going to touch on in my post, but it got too long, and you sum it up well enough here.
 
Show me someone that was a slave and I'll try to get them some reparations.

:rolleyes: Do you believe in the rights of people to pass their wealth on to their ancestors? If so, then their ancestors should also be able to receive the debt owed to them by past transgressions against their rights to their personal property. But as with any personal property transgression, it should only be paid by the offending party and THEIR ancestors.

This kind of response screams bias.
 
Repatriations ?

IF you can find it in the Constitution, Ron Paul supports it.

I'll be waiting for someone to cite the section it's in. Good Luck
 
Here is the trouble with reparations:

Slavery is the most efficient labor source. I know it sounds harsh, but stick with me for a little bit and I am not saying this as a racist to anyone black. But slavery is an efficient labor source, this is why my southern forefathers indulged in it. But when the Civil was was over, my family got booted off their land by carpetbaggers. When the war was over, southern families AND their ex-slaves lost any chance of making a living because they were no longer land owners...the Federal Government assumed ownership of what was once a family farm. So the former owner never got a chance to try to build a workable farm community and this didn't help the former slaves who had a sell able trade to try to make a life for themselves.

Most of my family wound up in Arkansas with a 40 acres and a mule government program, and many of their ex-slaves followed them there. Many took on the family name.

So if there is going to be reparations, is there going to be any reparations for these southern land owners who lost every thing they had to the Federal CarpetBaggers?

Here is another theory:

Sending our jobs overseas and importing illegal labor to take our jobs here in the USA, is this not an attempt to re-invent a form of slavery? How much do the Chinese get paid for their labor? Is cheap Mexican labor working in the US good for the Mexican government? So are we being Hippocrates even talking about reparations at this point? And how long will it be 'til we owe foreign labor reparations.
 
Here is the trouble with reparations:

Slavery is the most efficient labor source. I know it sounds harsh, but stick with me for a little bit and I am not saying this as a racist to anyone black. But slavery is an efficient labor source, this is why my southern forefathers indulged in it. But when the Civil was was over, my family got booted off their land by carpetbaggers. When the war was over, southern families AND their ex-slaves lost any chance of making a living because they were no longer land owners...the Federal Government assumed ownership of what was once a family farm. So the former owner never got a chance to try to build a workable farm community and this didn't help the former slaves who had a sell able trade to try to make a life for themselves.

Most of my family wound up in Arkansas with a 40 acres and a mule government program, and many of their ex-slaves followed them there. Many took on the family name.

So if there is going to be reparations, is there going to be any reparations for these southern land owners who lost every thing they had to the Federal CarpetBaggers?

Here is another theory:

Sending our jobs overseas and importing illegal labor to take our jobs here in the USA, is this not an attempt to re-invent a form of slavery? How much do the Chinese get paid for their labor? Is cheap Mexican labor working in the US good for the Mexican government? So are we being Hippocrates even talking about reparations at this point? And how long will it be 'til we owe foreign labor reparations.

This analysis misses the main point of slavery: it is a forceful taking of someone else's right to their own life, thus one of the most immoral crimes that can be committed. The only thing worse is killing another person because death is permanent, and if you're lucky as a slave, slavery isn't.

Everything that happened to families who profited off of slavery was deserved, but unfortunately they never got punished for committing the immoral act. Reparations would be the punishment. Of course, by this point in time, it would be nigh impossible to properly dole out this punishment justly, however, that doesn't deny the fact that it is deserved.

You're theory of foreign labor and how much they get paid sickens me. First of all, Chinese labor is forced into their jobs by their government, so we, as Americans should be boycotting any goods coming from China, but most of us are too ignorant or too impressed by cheap shit to give that up. So yes, there is hypocrisy, but the Chinese DO GET PAID. Not only that, they are out of the jurisdiction of our Constitution, which guarantees the natural rights of all human beings within the United States, which means no slavery.

And as far as the Mexican situation, it is not even close. No one is forcing Mexicans to work for the wages they get. Those are wages they have deemed high enough for their purposes, thus are perfectly suitable. Just because they don't fit the wages YOUR over-consumed life requires for a comfortable standard of living, doesn't mean they can't use those wages to provide for their families in Mexico. And asking about how good it is for the Mexican GOVERNMENT?! Are you a Ron Paul supporter? Do you know who he is? He's the only candidate who DOESN'T ask what's good for the GOVERNMENT, rather what's good for the PEOPLE.

I suggest you read up some on ethics and liberty. In fact, I recommend The Ethics of Liberty by Murray N. Rothbard.
 
Hey I think the kind of reparations I proposed was not race-based, and it didn't involve people from one group writing checks to another group. In other words, everybody should get opportunities that were denied to blacks in slavery/segregation until there's no recognizable difference between the "races". The reason it doesn't need to be race-based is because everybody was injured by the government's participation in slavery, not just blacks. Slavery and segregation were stains on the whole country, not just on blacks. That's really why it's still a painful subject and why people have this knee-jerk reaction when the subject of racism or slavery or reparations comes up.

There's nothing we can do to make descendants of slave-owning families pay up or to pay descendants of slaves. That's over and done with. But the government lives on, and we can address or correct the errors it committed during that time. Unless there's something innately wrong with blacks, providing a few opportunities to society as a whole ought to repair the damages caused by slavery and segregation, at least over time.

I'm just saying that, as a practical matter, the changes necessary in this point in our history mean we can't continue to be burdened by the ravages of slavery on our national psychology, and they are deep for everybody in the country, no matter your background. We need to fix this thing and move on, not only because we have a whole lot of people not really pulling for the country, but because we also have a whole lot of people who are so damaged that they couldn't pull for the country if they wanted to.

RP is really really smart. I think most people who support him don't understand just how shrewd and calculating some of his moves and timing are. The reason I think he'd support a reparations policy that is not race-based is that it has the capacity to accelerate the changes he wants to make, changes the country needs now. This policy is just a smart way to get the larger job done.
 
Hey I think the kind of reparations I proposed was not race-based, and it didn't involve people from one group writing checks to another group. In other words, everybody should get opportunities that were denied to blacks in slavery/segregation until there's no recognizable difference between the "races". The reason it doesn't need to be race-based is because everybody was injured by the government's participation in slavery, not just blacks. Slavery and segregation were stains on the whole country, not just on blacks. That's really why it's still a painful subject and why people have this knee-jerk reaction when the subject of racism or slavery or reparations comes up.

There's nothing we can do to make descendants of slave-owning families pay up or to pay descendants of slaves. That's over and done with. But the government lives on, and we can address or correct the errors it committed during that time. Unless there's something innately wrong with blacks, providing a few opportunities to society as a whole ought to repair the damages caused by slavery and segregation, at least over time.

I'm just saying that, as a practical matter, the changes necessary in this point in our history mean we can't continue to be burdened by the ravages of slavery on our national psychology, and they are deep for everybody in the country, no matter your background. We need to fix this thing and move on, not only because we have a whole lot of people not really pulling for the country, but because we also have a whole lot of people who are so damaged that they couldn't pull for the country if they wanted to.

RP is really really smart. I think most people who support him don't understand just how shrewd and calculating some of his moves and timing are. The reason I think he'd support a reparations policy that is not race-based is that it has the capacity to accelerate the changes he wants to make, changes the country needs now. This policy is just a smart way to get the larger job done.

A "reparations policy" implies a governmental program. Government can only get the money required for such a program through taxation, or theft. Do you think the problems of slavery run so deep that it demands a huge increase in the government mandated theft that is going on in this country?

And if the most ideal reparations solution is one that gives back to everyone because everyone was negatively effected by slavery, then where would the money come from? Would it be mass theft from everyone in order to give back to everyone? Sounds like another form of the Marxist redistribution of wealth to me... I am quite sure there are not any libertarians that would support something along these lines.
 
Back
Top