comment: >
  
  And where does the government get it's money?
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.