SLAVERY REPARATIONS COULD COST UP TO $14 TRILLION

[Seth]

Then your property rights should die when you die, and be returned to the state.

Why? Your property is yours, not the state's, and you get to give it to whomever you please because it is yours, and does not belong either to the state or the people.

However, damages that you suffered and seek to recover from those who damaged you only apply to those who are actually damaged by the damaging acts, which means that when the last person who was alive and was actually damaged by the acts dies, so does the cause of action because a cause of action for damages is not a property right that gets passed down from generation to generation, whereas property rights are.

While your wife and children might have a cause of action to sue for damages if you are killed by a drunk driver, your third cousins twice removed don't, and your great, great grandchildren who were not alive at the time don't, much less some peripherally-related by race individual a hundred or more years later whom you didn't even know and who obviously was not a party to the harm at the time.

You really do like the idea of stealing stuff that doesn't belong to you just because someone else has it and you don't, don't you?

[Seth]

Then your property rights should die when you die, and be returned to the state.

Well yes unless you wish to leave your property to charitable institutions, ie a high inheritance taxes but I suspect as we get richer that policy will be less and less popular

"Well yes" why, exactly? What is your rational and moral justification for trying to take what does not belong to you from those to whom the decedent has given it?

It's not your property. It's not the state's property, it's not the property of the public. So how do you categorize your desire to take what is not yours as anything other than pure, unadulterated theft?

[Seth]

There's a similar thing been going on for a few years in Australia, I think. Some aboriginal wages were held in trust, but never paid out.

Entirely different thing altogether. "Wages" are private property and if they were illegally held then it's perfectly justifiable for both the individual from whom they were withheld and his/her heirs to demand that they be paid, with interest, and possibly with damages for the tortious acts. As private property the right to devise that property to one's heirs IS a right which endures after death.

But those who did not earn the wage in the first place, much less someone related to such a person only by racial ancestry, do not have a property right in someone else's wages.

[rainbow]

Then your property rights should die when you die, and be returned to the state.

Why? Your property is yours, not the state's, and you get to give it to whomever you please because it is yours, and does not belong either to the state or the people.

Even if your property was stolen by your ancestors, from someone else's ancestors?

[pErvinalia]

That's different. Libertarian principles, something something...

[piscator]

That's right Seth. We should pay the descendants of African slaves, just like the Limeys have thrown open their coffers and paid the descendants of indentured Indians, Chinese opium addicts, and African slaves in the Caribbean.
Bob Marley only got a half share, but look what he did with it...

[Tyrannical]

But how would black Africans who originally enslaved then come up with that kind of money lol.

[klr]

I wonder what English reparations to the Irish would tally?

Inflation is a right bitch.

[Seth]

Then your property rights should die when you die, and be returned to the state.

Why? Your property is yours, not the state's, and you get to give it to whomever you please because it is yours, and does not belong either to the state or the people.

Even if your property was stolen by your ancestors, from someone else's ancestors?

Yes, in point of fact, it is. That's why we have statutes of limitation on such claims. "Adverse possession" is a very old concept in property law which has as its founding principle "if you sit on your rights for too long, you might lose them." The purpose of such statues of limitations is to prevent precisely what happens in places like Serbia, where somebody clubbed someone else's many-great grandfather to death and stole his potato patch eight hundred years ago and to this day the families/tribes continue to war and kill one another over whose it is.

Civilization, and that includes Libertarian society, requires that people fight their own battles when they occur and not simply sit idly by and then have one's ancestors show up generations later making some claim that cannot be resolved because everyone party to the dispute is long dead and the evidence long gone.

If we accept the notion that ancestral guilt requires that the ancestors of one group who are alleged to have dispossessed the ancestors of some other group however long ago be required to compensate the "victims" then such claims will quite literally never end because historically speaking everyone's ancestors seized land from someone else's ancestors. That's how nations and empires evolve and change.

At some point it's necessary to call a halt to such claims in order that people can hold settled titled and stop killing each other over a potato patch from 800 or 8000 years ago, and the deaths of those who were actually party to the dispute is the appropriate point in time to dismiss such claims.

[JimC]

Seth wrote:

Civilization, and that includes Libertarian society...

[pErvinalia]

[piscator]

Then your property rights should die when you die, and be returned to the Crown.

6.2/10
not trolled
meh

[pErvinalia]

It's Seth. One has to always try...

[Hermit]

Civilization, and that includes Libertarian society...

Yes. "Adverse Possession" does not look like a feature of civilisation to me, and its toleration or acceptance even less so.

[pErvinalia]

Yeah, it looks more like a post hoc justification for stealing other's property.