1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungHahahahahahaaaaaaaaa. What ever gave you that idea? Easily one of his more ridiculous ideas.
No1marauder once suggested that tort law is appropriate for the descendents of slaves (for reparations). I imagine he knows what he's talking about.
3 edits
Originally posted by AThousandYoung...to sue beyond the generations....will someone pay me for the 600,000 union dead ?...
No1marauder once suggested that tort law is appropriate for the descendents of slaves (for reparations). I imagine he knows what he's talking about.
Originally posted by Iron MonkeyThe grounds of such a suit would presumably be that current Native Americans are themselves harmed.
on what grounds? (excuse the pun). as far as i know, there's no legal or widely-accepted moral principle that confers rights on the descendants of those wronged.
Do you think it would be morally permissible for you to personally punish somebody for having harmed a loved one of yours?
3 edits
Originally posted by bbarrThe grounds of such a suit would presumably be that current Native Americans are themselves harmed.
The grounds of such a suit would presumably be that current Native Americans are themselves harmed.
Do you think it would be morally permissible for you to personally punish somebody for having harmed a loved one of yours?
Do you mean, harmed by current practices, or by what was done centuries ago? If the former, then presumably they have a case. If the latter, then an argument by Parfit might be relevant: if the constitution of the current generation of native Americans is very different to what it would have been had the events in question not taken place - i.e. if most or all native Americans alive today would not have even been conceived (and Parfit thinks this is true, I think) - and if the lives of today's native Americans have positive value to them (i.e. are worth living), then they have benefited rather than been harmed by those events. And therefore have no grounds for reparations claims.
Do you think it would be morally permissible for you to personally punish somebody for having harmed a loved one of yours?
I think punishment for wrong-doing is legitimate. In serious cases, the state generally abrogates the right to punishment to itself, but if punishment is generally morally permissible, then i don't see why personal punishment shouldn't be, even if it is not legally permissible.
2 edits
Originally posted by Sam The ShamThere are corporations that presently exist that were enriched by slavery. A corporation is a legal person and can be sued. Since the present value of the corporation is in some cases largely derived from such practices, the descendents of slaves who were actually harmed by these practices would have a straight line right to recovery from the legal person who did the practices i.e. the corporation.
Hahahahahahaaaaaaaaa. What ever gave you that idea? Easily one of his more ridiculous ideas.
Still think that's "ridiculous"? Read this: http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/article_3162.shtml
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderPlease give an example of a corporation that's present value is "largely derived" from having owned slaves. Also please explain how anyone can sue someone who did something wrong to someone else over 150 years ago.
. Since the present value of the corporation is in some cases largely derived from such practices, the descendents of slaves who were actually harmed by these practices would have a straight line right to recovery from the legal person who did the practices i.e. the corporation.
Still think that's "ridiculous"? Read this: http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/article_3162.shtml
As for finalcall.com, the link is beyond absurd, thank you for a good laugh.
Originally posted by Sam The ShamThe link is a factual one describing an actual court decision. How that is "absurd" is beyond me; you might not like the people who run the site but the facts presented are accurate.
Please give an example of a corporation that's present value is "largely derived" from having owned slaves. Also please explain how anyone can sue someone who did something wrong to someone else over 150 years ago.
As for finalcall.com, the link is beyond absurd, thank you for a good laugh.
Wachovia, CSX, JP Morgan and about 100 other companies have been linked to transactions regarding slaves. Considering that these transactions occurred 150 years or more ago when most of these corporations were relatively small, it is not surprising that they contributed significantly to the value of the company. If you know anything about compounding of money, you'd realize that transactions that may seem like relatively small in monetary terms NOW that occurred 150 years ago would be of rather considerable value NOW.
Since there is unquestionably an existing defendant, the only question is standing and that could be handled in a variety of ways including simple statutory reform. In case you've forgotten, in 1988, the US Congress passed a law granting reparations to the heirs of the Japanese-Americans held in the internment camps during WWII. A law granting descendants of slaves legal standing to sue corporations would be perfectly legal. In the meantime, some of the suits are preceding along in various state courts even though that is "ridiculous" to you.