 The distinction between restitution and reparations resolves another case that may weaken sympathies for reparations for historic injustices. The case involves the theft of a car that ends up years later the treasured possession of the thief’s daughter who has no idea that it was stolen (Waldron 1992, 14–15). In the meantime, the car’s original owner has eventually outgrown his attachment to it and gotten many other cars. The inference that we are invited to draw is that it would be wrong for him to compel the thief’s daughter to return the car to him, given that she has invested so much of her life in it and he has lost interest in it. Perhaps; but just because it would be wrong of him to demand restitution, it does not follow that it would be wrong of him to demand reparations; that his rights to reparations are somehow “superseded”. This is an entirely different question. The owner may act wrongly in insisting on restitution; maybe he should allow the thief daughter to keep the car. But it does not follow that he cannot demand reparations from the thief for the losses he suffered as a result of the theft of his car.