Wednesday, March 27, 2002
I'm sure a bunch of people have already commented on this, and my comments simply adds to the heap, but the recent suit seeking reparations for the descendants of slaves has a number of problems. First, none of the people who would receive reparations were, themselves, slaves. It's one thing to give money to people who endured an injustice themselves. It's tenuous at best to give money to someone three or four generations removed from the person who actually endured the injustice.
Second, let's say money from a bank robbery which took place in 1850 was used to build an office building. The descendants of the people whose money was stolen discover evidence in 2002 that the office building in question was built with that money. They therefore decide to sue the present occupants of that office building for damages. That's similar to a class action lawsuit suing Aetna for actions undertaken by Aetna management (or whatever they were named then) 150 years ago.
Companies, particularly old ones, are like houses. Blaming the present occupants of a company is like blaming the present occupants of a house for actions undertaken by inhabitants 150 years ago.
Third, think of all the injustices which have happened over the years. The British conquered Ireland, killing millions either directly or indirectly through famine. They did something similar in Quebec, which lead to the mass migration of French speakers who ended up in Louisiana. American Indians arguably endured worse than American slaves, as they were slaughtered almost to the point of extinction. Mayans and Incas have cause for complaint against Spain.
A lawyer might suggest that it would be difficult to find companies who directly or indirectly had any part in these atrocities, and they would be right. However, that is a LEGAL distinction. It makes NO sense to penalize one person for another's actions. That is, essentially, what the suit is trying to do.
I, personally, refuse to pay money for actions I had no part in. I never enslaved anybody, just as the people who currently work at Aetna never insured any plantations slave population. Though I'm sure it will be argued that the money from those insurance policies in some way went into the construction of the current corporation, the effect of forcing Aetna to pay damages will be borne by current employees, shareholders and policyholders, none of whom had any part in those decisions. That's fundamentally unfair, and though it is certainly less unfair than what happened to Africans forcibly brought to America to become slaves, it is still unfair. Fairness would have involved compensating the people who were slaves 100 years ago. Compensating people who were never slaves with money from people who never enslaved (or never provided insurance to slave owners) isn't fair.
Second, let's say money from a bank robbery which took place in 1850 was used to build an office building. The descendants of the people whose money was stolen discover evidence in 2002 that the office building in question was built with that money. They therefore decide to sue the present occupants of that office building for damages. That's similar to a class action lawsuit suing Aetna for actions undertaken by Aetna management (or whatever they were named then) 150 years ago.
Companies, particularly old ones, are like houses. Blaming the present occupants of a company is like blaming the present occupants of a house for actions undertaken by inhabitants 150 years ago.
Third, think of all the injustices which have happened over the years. The British conquered Ireland, killing millions either directly or indirectly through famine. They did something similar in Quebec, which lead to the mass migration of French speakers who ended up in Louisiana. American Indians arguably endured worse than American slaves, as they were slaughtered almost to the point of extinction. Mayans and Incas have cause for complaint against Spain.
A lawyer might suggest that it would be difficult to find companies who directly or indirectly had any part in these atrocities, and they would be right. However, that is a LEGAL distinction. It makes NO sense to penalize one person for another's actions. That is, essentially, what the suit is trying to do.
I, personally, refuse to pay money for actions I had no part in. I never enslaved anybody, just as the people who currently work at Aetna never insured any plantations slave population. Though I'm sure it will be argued that the money from those insurance policies in some way went into the construction of the current corporation, the effect of forcing Aetna to pay damages will be borne by current employees, shareholders and policyholders, none of whom had any part in those decisions. That's fundamentally unfair, and though it is certainly less unfair than what happened to Africans forcibly brought to America to become slaves, it is still unfair. Fairness would have involved compensating the people who were slaves 100 years ago. Compensating people who were never slaves with money from people who never enslaved (or never provided insurance to slave owners) isn't fair.
