Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Yakk
Almost 2000 years, based off the current Middle East wars.
There are those for whom it feels the wounds are still bleeding.
For as long as the assets persist? Or, at least as long as the person who did the crime persists. There are people fighting to get back the land they lost centuries ago (Ireland, Isreal, Africa, Spain, Aboriginals in North America). As someone on the winning side of historical theft, I can understand why people would want to say 'shut up about it, it is the past, let it lie'.
At the very least, as long as the person's persist. And if JP is the same corperation, in some sense, as the one's that did the deed, they are responsible for that earlier incarnation's deeds.
|
Look, if we're going to adopt the stance that we must repay formerly oppressed groups for what we took from them, then we have to abandon the country and give it back to the Indians.
I'm not arguing for or against that, but when I point that out it usually makes the reparationists stop and think for a couple of minutes.
If I steal your car I should have to make reparations for it. If your distant relative back in 1780 stole my distant relative's horse, as far as I'm concerned, you don't owe me a horse. It's not your fault, you didnt' do it, you wouldn't have done it, there was nothing you could do to prevent it, so why should you suffer?
I do not believe the son is guilty for the crimes of the father, but that's exactly what the concept of reparations says.
Let's take it another step farther. Let's say my dad was a bank robber. I grew up eating food bought with money my dad stole from the bank. When I grew up, I became an accountant. I never committed a crime. I never helped dad commit a crime. Should I have to pay for dad's crime? Should I go to jail for him? Should I have to pay 3 millon dollars out of my meager accountant's salary because of crimes my father committed? The only sane answer is hell no.