>descendants of slaves are due reparations from the U.S. government for the harms caused by slavery.
The U.S. government can only extort this from innocent people.
>we can use social science to determine how their lives would have been going if their ancestors had not been enslaved.
Those particular people would not exist. The people that do exist are better off by existing and by living in the U.S.
> if they had come to the U.S. voluntarily and lived their lives freely, their descendants would be better off than they are.
They would have stayed in Africa, often as the slaves of other blacks.
>Having to pay taxes to cover reparations is not a punishment. At least, it is no more of a punishment than having to pay taxes to fund the military, to pay for government employee salaries or to satisfy the requirements of international treaties.
All equally bad “punishments”.
>Taxpayers pay to fund the government, allowing the government to pay its debts. Period.
And they should stop paying.
>We may, of course, think the government should not have incurred certain debts. .. The fact is, it did—and those debts must, morally speaking, be paid.
If criminal gangs (or governments, but I repeat myself) have incurred certain debts should they be paid when that can only be done by more extortion?
>All that said, it might also be worth considering funding reparations by selling federal property, …
That property is owed to the U.S. populace as a whole: they would have owned it already but for the U.S. government.
… Letting politics defeat that duty would be more than unfortunate: It would leave us little reason to have faith that America can be a moral leader, that our government can stand for good.
Re: "The U.S. government can only extort this from innocent people": leaves it on the same level as all other taxation. Those that are OK with the rest should accept this.
Re: "Those particular people would not exist. The people that do exist are better off by existing and by living in the U.S." The non-existence problem looms huge, I agree. I think getting the right comparison is really hard.
Re: "They would have stayed in Africa, often as the slaves of other blacks." Perhaps. I think the relevant comparison is elsewhere--how would they be if they were here, but not enslaved? Defending that as the right comparison, I admit, takes some work.
Re: "All equally bad 'punishments'"--I just think the term is misused. You can say equally bad impairments or impositions, but then need to consider factors other than the size of the imposition and the coercion involved. Or so I think.
Re: "And they should stop paying." Well in my ideal world, gov'ts would not have taken on unjust debts. But we don't live in that world.
Re: "If criminal gangs (or governments, but I repeat myself) have incurred certain debts should they be paid when that can only be done by more extortion?" I think the gang should be made to pay its debts.
Re: :That property is owed to the U.S. populace as a whole: they would have owned it alre"dy but for the U.S. government." Interesting thought. I don't know what I think of it. Would need some historians to weigh in, I think.
Re: "That 'faith' looks more like a delusion." Yeah, I sometimes think that. Importantly, I don't think most people do.
>Re: "The U.S. government can only extort this from innocent people": leaves it on the same level as all other taxation. Those that are OK with the rest should accept this.
And they should be encouraged to reject all other taxation too. But some government spending is particularly perverse, and “reparations” falls into that category (partly as it stirs up racial conflict).
>Re: "Those particular people would not exist. The people that do exist are better off by existing and by living in the U.S." The non-existence problem looms huge, I agree. I think getting the right comparison is really hard.
Even if they were miraculously exactly the same people that would have existed but stayed in Africa, they are better off being in the U.S.
>Re: "They would have stayed in Africa, often as the slaves of other blacks." Perhaps. I think the relevant comparison is elsewhere--how would they be if they were here, but not enslaved? Defending that as the right comparison, I admit, takes some work.
If they were not to be enslaved, then there would have been no motive to take them. And that slavery benefitted their descendants (the identity problem aside) seems to be a fact.
>Re: "All equally bad 'punishments'"--I just think the term is misused. You can say equally bad impairments or impositions, but then need to consider factors other than the size of the imposition and the coercion involved. Or so I think.
You used “punishments”. I would usually say “initiated impositions” (although these vary in magnitude). I don’t see any other factors are relevant from a libertarian viewpoint.
>Re: "And they should stop paying." Well in my ideal world, gov'ts would not have taken on unjust debts. But we don't live in that world.
In my ideal world governments would not exist. Anything they do is illegitimate (apart from shrinking their activities and dismantling themselves).
>Re: "If criminal gangs (or governments, but I repeat myself) have incurred certain debts should they be paid when that can only be done by more extortion?" I think the gang should be made to pay its debts.
I agree, but not at other innocent people’s expense—as taxation will do.
>Re: :That property is owed to the U.S. populace as a whole: they would have owned it already but for the U.S. government." Interesting thought. I don't know what I think of it. Would need some historians to weigh in, I think.
If the state/government had not stopped people from “homesteading” all of the U.S., then it is hard to think of a reason that the populace would have stopped. Free land? Someone would have taken it eventually.
>Re: "That 'faith' looks more like a delusion." Yeah, I sometimes think that. Importantly, I don't think most people do.
But as philosophers, we are interested in truth primarily and propaganda only if it is compatible with truth.
Main reply: I’m not writing only for libertarians. Writing for people that are not libertarians does not entail being interested in “propaganda.” to convince someone else of a conclusion, it’s sometimes useful to take their intuitions for granted.
I didn’t suggest that we should be writing “for libertarians” but “as philosophers” (not that there is anything wrong with honest and moral propaganda). And as philosophers it seems better to challenge intuitions rather than take them for granted. Especially the woke intuition that reparations are desirable.
I certainly agree we should challenge intuitions. Since different people have different intuitions, there are many to be challenged. I chose to challenge some but not others. I don't think that's a problem.
The problem is that you seem to be bending over backwards to defend the woke intuition on reparations when it makes no sense, is bound to lead to more loss of liberty, and increase racial conflict. Some relevant arguments are scattered throughout this: https://jclester.substack.com/p/a-libertarian-response-to-macleod
>descendants of slaves are due reparations from the U.S. government for the harms caused by slavery.
The U.S. government can only extort this from innocent people.
>we can use social science to determine how their lives would have been going if their ancestors had not been enslaved.
Those particular people would not exist. The people that do exist are better off by existing and by living in the U.S.
> if they had come to the U.S. voluntarily and lived their lives freely, their descendants would be better off than they are.
They would have stayed in Africa, often as the slaves of other blacks.
>Having to pay taxes to cover reparations is not a punishment. At least, it is no more of a punishment than having to pay taxes to fund the military, to pay for government employee salaries or to satisfy the requirements of international treaties.
All equally bad “punishments”.
>Taxpayers pay to fund the government, allowing the government to pay its debts. Period.
And they should stop paying.
>We may, of course, think the government should not have incurred certain debts. .. The fact is, it did—and those debts must, morally speaking, be paid.
If criminal gangs (or governments, but I repeat myself) have incurred certain debts should they be paid when that can only be done by more extortion?
>All that said, it might also be worth considering funding reparations by selling federal property, …
That property is owed to the U.S. populace as a whole: they would have owned it already but for the U.S. government.
… Letting politics defeat that duty would be more than unfortunate: It would leave us little reason to have faith that America can be a moral leader, that our government can stand for good.
That “faith” looks more like a delusion.
Re: "The U.S. government can only extort this from innocent people": leaves it on the same level as all other taxation. Those that are OK with the rest should accept this.
Re: "Those particular people would not exist. The people that do exist are better off by existing and by living in the U.S." The non-existence problem looms huge, I agree. I think getting the right comparison is really hard.
Re: "They would have stayed in Africa, often as the slaves of other blacks." Perhaps. I think the relevant comparison is elsewhere--how would they be if they were here, but not enslaved? Defending that as the right comparison, I admit, takes some work.
Re: "All equally bad 'punishments'"--I just think the term is misused. You can say equally bad impairments or impositions, but then need to consider factors other than the size of the imposition and the coercion involved. Or so I think.
Re: "And they should stop paying." Well in my ideal world, gov'ts would not have taken on unjust debts. But we don't live in that world.
Re: "If criminal gangs (or governments, but I repeat myself) have incurred certain debts should they be paid when that can only be done by more extortion?" I think the gang should be made to pay its debts.
Re: :That property is owed to the U.S. populace as a whole: they would have owned it alre"dy but for the U.S. government." Interesting thought. I don't know what I think of it. Would need some historians to weigh in, I think.
Re: "That 'faith' looks more like a delusion." Yeah, I sometimes think that. Importantly, I don't think most people do.
>Re: "The U.S. government can only extort this from innocent people": leaves it on the same level as all other taxation. Those that are OK with the rest should accept this.
And they should be encouraged to reject all other taxation too. But some government spending is particularly perverse, and “reparations” falls into that category (partly as it stirs up racial conflict).
>Re: "Those particular people would not exist. The people that do exist are better off by existing and by living in the U.S." The non-existence problem looms huge, I agree. I think getting the right comparison is really hard.
Even if they were miraculously exactly the same people that would have existed but stayed in Africa, they are better off being in the U.S.
>Re: "They would have stayed in Africa, often as the slaves of other blacks." Perhaps. I think the relevant comparison is elsewhere--how would they be if they were here, but not enslaved? Defending that as the right comparison, I admit, takes some work.
If they were not to be enslaved, then there would have been no motive to take them. And that slavery benefitted their descendants (the identity problem aside) seems to be a fact.
>Re: "All equally bad 'punishments'"--I just think the term is misused. You can say equally bad impairments or impositions, but then need to consider factors other than the size of the imposition and the coercion involved. Or so I think.
You used “punishments”. I would usually say “initiated impositions” (although these vary in magnitude). I don’t see any other factors are relevant from a libertarian viewpoint.
>Re: "And they should stop paying." Well in my ideal world, gov'ts would not have taken on unjust debts. But we don't live in that world.
In my ideal world governments would not exist. Anything they do is illegitimate (apart from shrinking their activities and dismantling themselves).
>Re: "If criminal gangs (or governments, but I repeat myself) have incurred certain debts should they be paid when that can only be done by more extortion?" I think the gang should be made to pay its debts.
I agree, but not at other innocent people’s expense—as taxation will do.
>Re: :That property is owed to the U.S. populace as a whole: they would have owned it already but for the U.S. government." Interesting thought. I don't know what I think of it. Would need some historians to weigh in, I think.
If the state/government had not stopped people from “homesteading” all of the U.S., then it is hard to think of a reason that the populace would have stopped. Free land? Someone would have taken it eventually.
>Re: "That 'faith' looks more like a delusion." Yeah, I sometimes think that. Importantly, I don't think most people do.
But as philosophers, we are interested in truth primarily and propaganda only if it is compatible with truth.
Main reply: I’m not writing only for libertarians. Writing for people that are not libertarians does not entail being interested in “propaganda.” to convince someone else of a conclusion, it’s sometimes useful to take their intuitions for granted.
I didn’t suggest that we should be writing “for libertarians” but “as philosophers” (not that there is anything wrong with honest and moral propaganda). And as philosophers it seems better to challenge intuitions rather than take them for granted. Especially the woke intuition that reparations are desirable.
I certainly agree we should challenge intuitions. Since different people have different intuitions, there are many to be challenged. I chose to challenge some but not others. I don't think that's a problem.
The problem is that you seem to be bending over backwards to defend the woke intuition on reparations when it makes no sense, is bound to lead to more loss of liberty, and increase racial conflict. Some relevant arguments are scattered throughout this: https://jclester.substack.com/p/a-libertarian-response-to-macleod