Hacker News Reader

Comment by KoolKat23 | Hacker News Reader

That's more to do with the method in which it was resolved, it was ended in place of government debt. They can't simply renege on government debts purely due to its origin.

It's like saying they should in part renege on some current 2008 financial crisis debts.

View on HN

Would you be opposed to the British government mandating that the descendants of slavers need to repay this debt? Why or why not?

Yes I would oppose it, how do you decide what is what at this juncture?

Should Alcapone's children refund any inheritance?

Do you extend this further and tax them for their privileged upbringing? This is absurd, and goes against our liberal principles of fairness. Not equity, fairness.

So in other words you feel that society as a whole should pay the cost of reparations to slavers?

If that's the case, why do you feel that society as a whole should do so but shouldn't bear the cost of reparations to the descendents of slaves?

I mean, they can renege, Parliamentary Sovereignty and all that jazz. The choice not to renege is indeed a choice.

Of course it is. Tell me who wants to buy a governments bonds when they renege on their obligations.

I haven't looked into it, but there is also a good chance the bonds have changed hands since.

Not saying it's a good idea but the choice will always be there, and the decision not to do it is nonetheless still a choice. And so coming full-circle back to reparations, why don't we want societies to correct past wrongs? Why is honouring two-century old debt so world-shatteringly important, but fixing two-century old injustice (and its ongoing legacies) scoffed at?

Because two-century old injustice is handwavey pie-in-the-sky talk,it is also ridiculously selective. There are other injustices too and how do you determine what the amount is? Do you offset slave ancestors privilege for growing up in the 1st world against their ancestors losses, what is the actual tangible loss due to the past rather than those due to more modern injustices such as overt racism or mere growing up in a poorly run town? It's completely impractical and/or virtue signalling.

Reneging on debt is a very real decision taken today (not in the past). Practically speaking it signals to bondholders you can't be trusted to keep your word. Hardly honourable, not that they'd worry about this point of view, it's cold hard calculation, will you renege when you proceed on your next ideological crusade, this signals yes.

Got it, human suffering is less important than debt

That's a reach, actually completely disingenuous.

You try help someone based on their CURRENT circumstances, not based on their relationship with someone who died 200 years ago.

Completely ridiculous, what about those whose parents were drug addicts, or were kept out of school, or were just purely unlucky to be brought up in and surrounded by poverty. You'll find there are many, more contemporaneous, reasons for suffering and that there are many people suffering that do not have any previously persecuted ancestors.

Address their current situation without bias or favouritism.

> You try help someone based on their CURRENT circumstances

You claim I'm being disingenuous and then say this as if I haven't been this entire time referring to historic injustices AND THEIR ONGOING LEGACIES. Nah, y'all just prefer to selectively ignore that part.

I'm saying you can't measure that accurately, it is also extremely biased, what about other injustice? Are those folks less important?

You can measure someone's current suffering, resolve that (and it can be done in a much more fair manner).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com