comment: >
  
  
  “Practically its a non starter for many reasons”
  
  You don’t have to lie and say there is more than one reason. You don’t dig the idea of reparations because you will most likely not receive anything from them. Lets just be honest here.
context: Inheritance doesn't imply I deserve anything from my parents, it implies my parents have the right to do what they want with their money including but not limited to giving it to me. >
  
  
  Inheritance doesn't imply I deserve anything from my parents, it implies my parents have the right to do what they want with their money including but not limited to giving it to me.
  
  When I mention inheritance, I’m talking about it from the perspective of the person who receives it, he or she should be rejecting it if they are morally consistent with the “past is the past” or “why should I have to pay for crimes that people before me committed?” Rhetoric. >
  
  People generally are not opposed to voluntary donations.  "Why should I have to pay?" and "What is wrong with me deciding to pay?" are differnt questions. >
  
  
  If I shouldn’t bare the sins of my father, why should I bare his fruits?
  
  This is like saying “if I don’t drink poison, why should I drink water?”
  You drink it because it’s good for you, and you make the choice to accept things that are good for you.
  There are many reasons to be for or against reparations. There are also many reasons to be for or against inheritance of wealth. They are not, however, related.
  In an inheritance, the wealth is usually transferred between people in the same family, who know each other, and who both want the wealth transfer to take place. That is not the case for reparations.
  Again, anyone can be for or against either of them, but there is no reason to say that if you are against one, you have to be against the other. >
  
  
  This is like saying “if I don’t drink poison, why should I drink water?” You drink it because it’s good for you, and you make the choice to accept things that are good for you.
  
  Yes. I know human being are mostly opportunistic and would do what best for them. I spoke about that in the post, I’m pointing out the moral inconsistency here. Most people would make the moral argument that I shouldn’t bare the consequences of my fathers actions when those lead to negative things like debt, bondage or worse but wouldn’t make the same argument when the consequences of their fathers actions lead to wealth, power or better.
  
  There are many reasons to be for or against reparations. There are also many reasons to be for or against inheritance of wealth. They are not, however, related. In an inheritance, the wealth is usually transferred between people in the same family, who know each other, and who both want the wealth transfer to take place. That is not the case for reparations. Again, anyone can be for or against either of them, but there is no reason to say that if you are against one, you have to be against the other.
  
  They aren’t directly related no. But I’m pointing out the moral inconsistency in regards to those to topics that I seem to hear a lot, people would detach themselves from others if they commit bad acts, however would have no problem reattaching themselves to the gains of those bad acts. >
  
  The moral justifications are completely different. For reservations, the justification is that your ancestors were wronged, so the state should pay you. For inheritance, the justification is that the deceased left instructions of what to do with their belongings. >
  
  Reparations are implemented at the level of the collective. It is the socialization of past wrongs, and that is morally unjustified as not all members of the collective necessarily benefited in the past. The descendants of the victims do not have the right to anything from those who didn't benefit from the victimization.
  Inheritance is implemented at the level of the individual. The same logic used above applies here as well. Unless you can attach the original wrongdoing to the individual himself, no third party has any right to anything belonging to the individual.
  In both cases, consent can overcome the obstacle. Someone whose ancestors didn't benefit can consent to reparations, and someone can choose to pass the inheritance to someone.
  If your father truly sinned and you benefited, then you are obliged bear his sins. That's practically non-existent outside of a few case (eg. British monarchy) though. >
  
  
  why should I bare his fruits?
  
  Because he chose to give you his fruits >
  
  I deliberately mentioned from the “side of the recipient”, the recipient should take the initiative to reject it if they are morally consistent with the “past is the past” principle. >
  
  It has nothing to do with the past being the past. It has to do with punishing people for things they didn't do. If people choose to give others money as reparations, that's perfectly OK. What isn't OK is the government stealing money from people to provide reparations. >
  
  
  punishing people for things they didn't do
  
  Except that if someone steals a bunch of money, and then spends it on their family, the stuff bought with the stolen money is taken away. >
  
  Should that really be considere a punishment? >
  
  You're looking at reparations through a very one-dimensional lens: X people have wealth at the expense of Y people, therefore X people owe Y people something back.
  But reparations in real life is more like: X people had wealth at one time, maybe not anymore, at the expense of Y people. Therefore A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, and X people need to make reparations to Y people and everyone who looks slightly like them regardless of actual historical subjugation or not.
  The main argument against reparations isn't that one group didn't benefit from the subjugation of another. It's that people are made to pay for crimes they didn't commit, and didn't even benefit from, to some other group, even though many members of that group have very tenuous connection to the actual victims of those crimes.
  Inheritance does not have a parallel to the reality of reparations. You are comparing your mental model of how reparations work in a perfect world, to how inheritance works in our existing world. You're comparing an abstract idea to a real practice. This is illogical. >
  
  
  But reparations in real life is more like: X people had wealth at one time, maybe not anymore, at the expense of Y people. Therefore A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, and X people need to make reparations to Y people
  
  This isn't the dominant model of reparations most people are asking for. In the most common model I've seen, X is "the US government" and Y is "Black Americans." The US government was responsible for the extraction of wealth from Black Americans, resulting in an inequality of wealth (between the average Black American and the average American) that persists to this day. Therefore, the US government is asked to make reparations to Black Americans, so as to make them whole by dissolving the socioeconomic gaps that still exist. There's no alphabet of third parties who are being asked to make reparations here. >
  
  Assuming you’re a US citizen then the “US government” is you. >
  
  What? That seems obviously false: most citizens do not hold governmental office, and even those who do are not themselves the government. The government is a legal entity independent of any of its officers and employees. >
  
  
  most citizens do not hold governmental office,
  
  But they do pay taxes, which are what is being proposed to be used for these payments >
  
  Who is proposing to use a tax on all US citizens (or even most US citizens) to pay directly for reparations? I don't think I've seen any proposals like that. >
  
  Where else could the money come from? >
  
  From the government. >
  
  And where does the government get it's money? >
  
  The US Mint and the Bureau of Engraving and Printing. >
  
  People work their ass off for their children. Therefore it is their $ to some degree. It wouldn't exist without them. 
  It's a good incentive. You need incentives to have a productive society. >
  
  Practically, makes sense. I’m making a moral argument. >
  
  Morally the argument is. People should be able to do whatever they want with the $ they earn. Why should they not be able to give it to their kids? It's not practical. Much like you correctly pointed out reparations are not practical.
  So inheritance is impractical to remove. Reparations is impractical to execute. They are polar opposites in that regard. >
  
  
  If I shouldn’t bare the sins of my father, why should I bare his fruits?
  
  Racial-based reparations aren't about the sins of anyone's father, they're about the sins of people unrelated to people who are simply classified in the same “race” in notoriously nonsensical U.S.A. race classification schemes.
  Most “African-Americans” as they call it in the U.S.A. are at least 50% indigenously European and have the blood of slave owners. In fact, since slave owners were only an elite wealthy minority that often raped slaves, it's very likely that the average “African-American” has more slave owner blood than the average “European-American” in the U.S.A.
  It's not about ancestry, which would be dubious enough.
  That being said, I think inheritance should not exist, giving people something for free should not be allowed, and that all children should be raised in centralized government child-raring facilities rather than by actual parents exactly because I don't believe in the advantage people get depending on how wealthy their parents are. >
  
  Im assuming you're talking about giving mobey to black americans for slavery which if thats the case then Im just gonna say willing passing down money to family is not the same as making it an obligation to give my money away to someone for something that I didn't do. >
  
  
  As far as I’m concerned inheritance from the side of the recipient is just one big welfare check, probably even better.
  
  But pretty clearly from the side of the decedent, they're giving their stuff to a person because the want to. 
  
  I just think there’s a moral inconsistency that’s all, everybody would passionately oppose to paying off the debts of people before them yet would unregretfully accept their gains, if your view of the world is as contaminated as mine then in a way it’s an implicit celebration of the past.
  
  The difference is that one of these situations involves the government extracting money through taxation backed by the threat of violence to pay people, or sometimes the descendants of people or people who look like people, that were wronged and the other involves someone voluntarily disbursing their estate and moveable property after they die.   
  
  America makes for an easy case study. There was a lot of bloodshed and mistreatment in history and even abroad today to sustain a society with an abundance of wealth and more. 
  
  There were also a lot of people who worked hard and created a tremendous amount of value for others and then chose to leave their wealth to others after they died. 
  
  Everybody is happy to reap the rewards of that, but the second it’s implied that there should be compensation for those wrongs
  
  Because being punished for something you didn't do is wrong. 
  
  Can my dad steal all your dads wealth, I inherit that wealth, you ask for some, would it then be fair for me to say that the past is the past and it’s not my responsibility to give you money?
  
  Based on the statute of limitations for theft, ya probably. 
  But it's a bad metaphor, everyone who lives in America benefits tremendously from the work of Americans who came before, but that doesn't mean they owe anything to the ancestors of those people or people who look like those people. 
  
  Money is a store of value, the exploitation of American slaves for example created wealth that hasn’t disappeared and has likely trickled down through generations.
  
  Indeed. 
  
  Money is a means of exchange, I can exchange the value of labour that has been done over a hundreds of years ago for some today (likely not the same amount)
  
  Indeed. 
  
  If we truly should be disconnected from the decisions made by those before us, shouldn’t we just all start from 0?
  
  We're not disconnected from the decisions of those before us, but we aren't at fault for their bad decisions. 
  
  If I shouldn’t bare the sins of my father, why should I bare his fruits?
  
  Because he wanted to give them to you. >
  
  
  If we truly should be disconnected from the decisions made by those before us, shouldn’t we just all start from 0? 
  
  Yes but the solution to that is not abolishing inheritance but having a system where we don't depend on inherited money to make money ourselves. >
  
  Inheritance is good primary from the perspective of the one giving them
  If I earn money and make something out of my life it would be incredibly disheartening and cheapening if when I die it just disappears and I didn’t have the opportunity to pass it on to my kids who I care about
  Yeah it’s a welfare check for there kids but ultimately it’s not for them in a moral sense it’s for the parents
  Reparations also don’t make any sense due to the impracticality of who deserves reparations and who deeevred to pay them 
  In inherentence the person who pays it does so by free will as a gift out of the funds they earned in there life to someone of there choosing
  In repressions it’s someone who’s it’s taken by force to give to someone who they don’t know or choose