bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 40,487
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
We already have a measure of how much a person's forebears were oppressed, which would give a much better estimate of the degree of reparations owed to an individual by society than that individual's ethnicity, gender, or other broad categorisation.
Wealth.
We should have the wealthy pay reparations to the poor. It's both justified and equitable; and we could call it 'tax and spend'.
Of course it's not a perfect solution. But it's a fuck of a lot better than using skin colour as the criterion for deciding who needs to be compensated for past abuses.
And it's a sliding scale. If only three of someone's bears were oppressed, they will likely pay somewhat more in taxes, and have somewhat less provided to them as benefits.
I like it! Let's go bold: reparations to Blacks, First Nations, Women, and people with $500million or less in wealth?!
The point is that if you ONLY use the latter of those four criteria, most people in the first three groups will automatically benefit - and any who do not likely don't deserve to.
Also, setting a threshold is arbitrary and stupid. Reparations inversely proportional to wealth is my proposal.
Better still, proportional to inheritance (including all parental funding of their children's lives). Wealth and privilege you aquire yourself is justly yours. Wealth and privilege derived from your choosing to have wealthy and privileged parents, not so much.
People with wealthy forebears owe those with only three - but not as much as they owe those with no wealthy bears at all.