Reparations: No Reason

Addressing the Arguments For and Against Reparations

Jan 02, 2022

Bad Day Bill and Good Day Gary are driving separately to the same job interview. Good Day Gary makes it to the interview, interviews and gets the job. It’s a good job that pays twenty percent more than his current job. Gary uses the additional compensation to: remodel his kitchen, buy a new car and take a vacation in Key West. Additionally, he donates $1,000 to the Woke Foundation for Censoring Speech (WFCS).

Bad Day Bill does not make it to the interview. Drunk Driver Dave lost control of his car and caused an accident, killing Bill. Additionally, Drunk Driver Dave is never identified and does not face criminal charges or a civil lawsuit – he is not held responsible in any way.

The argument could be made that Gary benefited from Dave killing Bill. If Bill made it to the interview, Gary may have still gotten the job. However, one fewer person interviewing increases the probability that Gary would get the job. If Gary benefited from Dave’s illegal and irresponsible behavior that negatively affected Bill, does Bill’s family have any claim against Gary? Absolutely not. Not in any episode of the Twilight Zone would that take place.

Yet, people supporting reparations would argue that Bill’s family does have a claim against Gary. And that’s just the beginning. People supporting reparations would argue that Bill’s family also has a claim against the contractor that remodeled Gary’s kitchen since that contractor benefited from Bill getting killed. The same goes for the car dealership that sold Gary his new car and Key West, which benefited from Gary’s vacation. And the value of Gary’s house increased as a result of the kitchen remodel. Since the value of his house increased, the value of his neighbors’ houses also increased – so the neighbors benefited. And increased property values mean a higher tax base for real estate taxes, so everyone in that tax district benefited. Last, the WFCS benefited from Gary’s generous and nauseating charitable donation.

But what if Bill’s sister owned the car dealership (very Woke) that sold Gary his new car? Bill’s sister has a claim against herself. And what if Bill’s son remodeled Gary’s kitchen? He now must battle himself in court to determine who gets the money. And the WFCS digitally stoned Good Day Gary to death on Twitter and believed it “benefited” Bill’s family. A valuation firm would have to get involved to determine which party received the net benefit.

As you have deduced by now, the “benefit creates liability” philosophy rapidly descends into madness. And one of the arguments used by people supporting reparations uses the “benefit creates liability” philosophy. However, action creates liability, nothing else. Equally important, only the actor is liable. Not the actor’s neighbors, demographic or descendants.

The “benefit argument” is one of three arguments used by people supporting reparations. The other two are: (1) slavery and unequal treatment under the law have caused a wealth and income gap that cannot be closed and (2) yes, slavery was legal, but it is wrong.

Before getting to the other two arguments, it’s time to address the typical conservative responses to the issue of reparations. Conservatives typically say that reparations would either be too divisive or too expensive or both. Neither of these arguments are based in logic. Reparations are either justifiable or they are not. It doesn’t matter whether they would be too divisive or too expensive; those are assumed consequences, not justifications against reparations. The division and expense arguments are based in emotional subjectivity, the exclusive kingdom of liberals. If against reparations, conservatives need to “dismantle and reimagine” their argument (sources for “dismantle and reimagine”: Marx, Engels, Marcuse, Obama, Black Lives Matter, AOC, Bernie Sanders, et al. Even though our Comrade in Chief has no problem with plagiary, this columnist avoids such uncouth behavior.)

Ok, reparations argument number two: slavery, segregation, redlining, the ’94 crime bill and general discrimination have created an income and wealth gap that cannot be closed. It’s important to acknowledge that these transgressions have either violated natural or civil rights and have fully or disproportionately affected black people. Further, these violations have negative economic consequences and contribute to income and wealth inequality, along with the economic bondage created by liberal dependency peddlers targeting minorities, particularly the black community. That disclaimer is necessary because the immediate liberal backlash is, “you don’t acknowledge the effects of how black people have been treated; you don’t ‘get it;’ you’re a racist (or a sell-out).”

Thinking that the income and wealth gap cannot be closed is based in Marxist economic theory. Marxism is based on the fallacy that societal interactions and economic transactions are zero-sum, not accretive. And since interactions are zero-sum, the government must get involved to balance out the societal ledger.

Simple thought exposes the idiocy of Marx’s assumption. If human interactions were zero-sum, we would still be living in caves. Let’s say each person in each interaction had a 50/50 chance of winning/losing. There would be no net benefit to interact with anyone outside of your family. Or let’s say someone found a way to win 100% of the time. In a short period of time that person would not have anyone with which to interact. Why would you if you had a 100% chance of losing? The existence of societies shows that human interactions are accretive, or mutually beneficial.

Additional proof can be seen over human existence in increased life expectancy, literacy rates and real per-capita GDP. Living standards, thanks to capitalism, are dramatically better today than 100, 1,000 and 10,000 years ago. Does anyone want to sign up for a world without electricity, indoor plumbing, supermarkets, anesthesia, the internet, mattresses, central heat and air or soap? Or the most important human innovation: the written language. The written language allows for the accumulation and distribution of knowledge, which allow for additional innovations and individual opportunity. We have those innovations because human interactions are mutually beneficial, not zero-sum. Producers and consumers of innovation benefit, so we innovate.

Supporters of reparations use the zero-sum fallacy to argue that the racial income and wealth gap cannot be closed because black people are starting from behind and cannot “catch-up” because white people will not voluntarily “give up” their income and wealth. In other words, independent social mobility is impossible without government-mandated redistribution. Again, simple thought exposes the lunacy of this belief. If independent social mobility was not possible, there would be no independent social mobility in any demographic. There would also be no examples of wealthy people losing their wealth. Of course, we know that social mobility does exist, despite the dependency peddler’s unending quest to lure as many Americans as possible into economic bondage, a ball and chain to opportunity and mobility. And since these dependency peddlers target minorities, particularly the black community, they are creating the environment that produces the racial income and wealth gap.

The government’s role in social mobility should be limited to promoting individual empowerment, which will be addressed in a later column. Of course, politicians must believe in and want individual empowerment. A “problem” with individual empowerment is that it decreases the importance and need of government “help,” decreasing the importance of politicians and bureaucrats. Individual empowerment also makes it more difficult to buy votes by telling people they are chronically oppressed and can only look to the government for economic justice. Buying votes in this manner and spending other people’s money are oxygen for Democrats, so independent empowerment is deadly to them – don’t hope for too much change.

Quickly, my criticism is of liberal policies that create the environment causing the racial gap, not the victims of these liberal policies. This disclaimer is also necessary because liberals immediately start screaming, “YOU’RE VICTIM SHAMING!!” Liberals and liberal policies promote victimhood, in this case economic bondage via social engineering programs. My criticism is of the cause, not the effect.

The third and last argument for reparations says, “yes, slavery was legal, but it was wrong.” Yes, this is true. However, retroactively prosecuting based on changes in law rapidly descends into madness that would even gain the attention of Good Day Gary.

Abortion is legal in the United States. But approximately forty percent of Americans believe abortion is wrong and should be illegal (even some pro-choicers believe abortion is wrong but believe a woman’s right to choose supersedes the child’s right to life).

Let’s say tomorrow Roe v. Wade is overturned and all abortions became illegal. Supporters of reparations would say that anyone who previously violated tomorrow’s law should be prosecuted. And if those individuals are no longer around to face justice, their descendants, neighbors and demographic group should be held responsible. Plus, the benefit argument says that any financial gains from the previously legal abortion industry must be clawed back.

There are other examples. Let’s say Congress changes the tax code today and your tax rates increase. Complying with the new tax code would not be enough; you would owe back taxes because last year and every year before you were violating the new tax code. How about changes in speed limits Hundreds of millions of past violations would have to be ticketed. If grandma is no longer around to pay up, you’re on the hook. How about mask mandates? If you live in an area today requiring masks and you weren’t masking up in 2019 and every year before, open your wallet and pay up. How about changes in business regulations? There is an infinite number of examples. Retroactively prosecuting based on changes in laws is delusional, no matter how wrong a previous law was.

The only justifiable action is to change today to improve upon yesterday, looking forward instead of looking backward. Equal protection under the law is not something America has perfected, but despite what liberal activists desperately need us to accept, we have (slowly) improved throughout our history by striving for a more perfect union. These improvements promote closing the income and wealth gap because they promote individual empowerment and self-determination. However, liberal social engineering has had an equal, if not stronger, pull in the opposite direction by encouraging people to become economically dependent on the government for survival.

If liberals wanted to correct for past transgressions against black people, they would promote equal protection under the law and stop promoting government dependence. The liberal mind requires repeating a previous disclaimer: the criticism is of liberal policies, not victims of those policies. Even if someone doesn’t believe in these social engineering programs, it’s illogical to refuse them. If you’re the only eligible person who declines, you’re initially putting yourself at a disadvantage relative to the group, even though by accepting you’re unknowingly limiting your future opportunity relative to the rest of the country. Circumstantial government programs are necessary and defensible. However, these programs should be designed to help people to become independent of the programs, thereby promoting individual empowerment, something no liberal can fathom. Yet, liberals will continue to blame “racist” conservatives for the racial income and wealth gap. Those gaps are a function of policies supported by Democrats: slavery, segregation, the “New Deal,” the “Great Society,” the ‘94 Crime Bill and eventually the “Green New Deal.”

Democrats use the income and wealth gap as justification for more liberal meddling. Eventually, the following will happen: liberals will give up on redistribution and simply distribute. They will take away property rights, choice and competition and have everything planned and run by the government. This is the only outcome of liberal policies. Liberalism creates economic bondage, decreasing individual opportunity. Less opportunity creates more need for liberalism, which creates more economic bondage – the “solutions” are the problem. All the while you’ll hear about “social justice,” “morality,” “compassion,” and “the right side of history.”

Reparations are not justifiable. But if you happen to convince someone that reparations are not justifiable and they say, “yeah, but…,” detail the inevitable outcome of social engineering programs and how those programs limit opportunity and contribute to the income and wealth gap. The “Green New Deal” and reparations will do nothing except create more government dependence (well – those programs would also allow Democrats to purchase votes and say they “care”), decreasing individual opportunity. These programs may sound good, certainly “moral” and “compassionate”, but morality and compassion are intents, not outcomes. The goal should be to create an environment that promotes the best outcome. The best outcome results from individual empowerment and self-determination, not economic bondage and government-determination.

Renaissance Rants Man

Discussion about this post