comment: >
  
  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.
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