Ron Paul/Reparations

Does Ron Paul support reparations?

Yes. He believes that Cromagnons should make reparations to Neanderthals: one flint knife and one wooden club for every living Neanderthal man, woman and child. (What will you do with your knife and club, Dan?)

Paul supported paying slave OWNERS for their slaves, why not the unpaid victims of the practice?

SFCraig wrote:Paul supported paying slave OWNERS for their slaves, why not the unpaid victims of the practice?

That reparation money will have to come from their "country/tribe of origin in Africa" that sold them to the slave traders.

.

This is just such a stupid proposal, imho.

Why would Paul support slave owners' rights to be compensated, as opposed to the victims?

I know it's hypothetical...but if one could go back in time to right a wrong, one would think the greatest wrong would be slavery. What about reparations for the Holocaust? What about returning wealth and art stolen from the Jews during that time?

What has Paul said about the issue? Can you locate it?

Why would Paul support slave owners' rights to be compensated, as opposed to the victims?

Because none are living.

ohio county wrote:

Why would Paul support slave owners' rights to be compensated, as opposed to the victims?

Because none are living.

Precisely!!!

I think this goes to the matter of the left ascribing to the government more power than it actually has. To imagine that somehow the government can right the past wrong of slavery is another indication that the government is itself the religion of the left, a being with supernatural powers, indeed. Not only can it end hunger, inequality, and global warming, but it can also go back 150 years and, through extracting money from people not involved, right the wrongs.

BTW, Craig, when are you giving San Francisco back to the indigenous people the Spanish deposed? Have you tried to find a descendent of whatever nation was there and offered her your property?

SheikBen wrote:BTW, Craig, when are you giving San Francisco back to the indigenous people the Spanish deposed? Have you tried to find a descendent of whatever nation was there and offered her your property?

Well, you're off base. We stole this land fair and square from the Mexicans. But yes, all of America was stolen and we should apologize and make amends in any fair way we can.

African slaves worked for free and added to the prosperity of the US. If Paul is in favor (historically speaking) for compensating now dead slave-owners, why would he not have been in favor of compensating the then-living unpaid workers?

It's a fair question.

Craig I have no idea what you are talking about.

Paul said that you could buy the slaves and release them. That is essentially reparations for slave owners. Why would he not have supported compensation for the unpaid work of slaves? I have not seen or heard him ever say that.


http://www.lewrockwell.com/murphy/murphy130.html

SFCraig wrote:Paul said that you could buy the slaves and release them. That is essentially reparations for slave owners. Why would he not have supported compensation for the unpaid work of slaves? I have not seen or heard him ever say that.


http://www.lewrockwell.com/murphy/murphy130.html

AW, don't be silly, ....... that is essentially Right of Eminent Domain.

I mean "DUH", you've been telling us the slaves had an "eminent right" to live where and however they wanted to, ....... right?



.

SFCraig wrote:Paul said that you could buy the slaves and release them. That is essentially reparations for slave owners. Why would he not have supported compensation for the unpaid work of slaves? I have not seen or heard him ever say that.


http://www.lewrockwell.com/murphy/murphy130.html

Your argument is bankrupt. Paul was accurately describing what other nations did successfully to end slavery in their countries peacefully. The slave owners were being denied what they considered to be their property. Property they bought and paid for and made a profit from.

You and I don't view those people as property. The simple fact of the matter is the slave owners did.....money making property. It would have been much more cost effective, on both an economic and a human level, to just pay the slave holders.

Now you're suggesting that Americans 150 years after the abolition of slavery pay reparations to the victims of slavery? Bullshit, plain and simple. People held as slaves prior to the Emancipation Proclamation are all dead, as are their children. There is nobody to pay reparations to. Even if any of them were still alive, why should my family be forced to fund reparations to them? I never owned a slave, nor did my parents, or my grandparents, or my great-grandparents.

BTW......3 of my 4 grandparents were first generation Americans. My maternal grandfather's grandfather (yes, that's how many generations we have to go back) fought for the Union in the Civil War. He lost two brothers and was left a cripple fighting that war. I figure my family made all the reparations ever required on the battle field.

Stephanie wrote:
BTW......3 of my 4 grandparents were first generation Americans. My maternal grandfather's grandfather (yes, that's how many generations we have to go back) fought for the Union in the Civil War. He lost two brothers and was left a cripple fighting that war. I figure my family made all the reparations ever required on the battle field.

But Stephanie, ....... that doesn't count.

"Count" ..... as in "counting the money" they expect to be getting via those Repartation Checks.




.