• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Poll about theft

If Person B steals from Person A and gives the item to Person C, is Person C obligated to return it?

  • Yes

    Votes: 32 91.4%
  • No

    Votes: 3 8.6%

  • Total voters
    35

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Yes, it's clearly not a simple case. Yet the OP question still seems somewhat pertinent. I gave my thoughts on what it would mean to account for this in post #16.

Quoting myself:
I'm much more a fan of compensating people who've
personally endured injustice. Too much of reparations
talk is simply race based.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
To me, fighting someone with love and kindness is better
That certainly has its place, & is under-used.
I've an odd background....felonious Vietnam draft dodger
who worked as an engineer on various military aircraft,
eg, F-18. War is sometimes useful, but should be rare.
 
A relevant new podcast I've started listening to:

Stuff The British Stole

This actually illustrates the problems quite well:

The British stole a tiger, centuries later its roar is still being heard

A violent and sometimes oppressive minority ruler who aimed to expand his power via conquest losing out to a violent and sometimes oppressive minority regime aiming to expand their power via conquest and having his stuff taken, and an artefact that probably wouldn't have survived had it not been 'stolen'
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Would be a bit like America or Canada asking for reparations from the British...
Sorry... I don't see how that would be silly.

If Canada ends up responsible for paying reparations for wrongs that were committed before 1867 - or arguably even up to 1931 - then Britain played a role as well. What would be wrong with Canada recouping the UK's share of the damages from the UK?

Both of our countries have joint and several liability; that's how it's supposed to work. The wronged party recovers damages from whichever tortfeasor they choose to sue, then it's up to that tortfeasor to sort out what the various shares of those damages ought to be amongst all the responsible parties.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Yes, it's clearly not a simple case. Yet the OP question still seems somewhat pertinent. I gave my thoughts on what it would mean to account for this in post #16.

Quoting myself:
Adding to this, time should erase ownership to some extent.
Why?
In order for someone to invest in property, there must be
some security, lest the risk discourage productivity.
This is behind adverse possession law.

Antiquities wrongfully taken would be different, eg,
returning them to the country of origin. In this case,
there should be security afforded the descendant owner.
 
Last edited:

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
As I said earlier, you cannot retroactively implement moral norms of today.
What about the norms of the time?

Columbus was arrested and brought back to Spain in chains for his violence against the natives of Hispaniola. It's historical revisionism to say that even harsher actions by the Conquistadors wasn't condemned in its own time.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
This actually illustrates the problems quite well:

The British stole a tiger, centuries later its roar is still being heard

A violent and sometimes oppressive minority ruler who aimed to expand his power via conquest losing out to a violent and sometimes oppressive minority regime aiming to expand their power via conquest and having his stuff taken, and an artefact that probably wouldn't have survived had it not been 'stolen'
Did you actually listen to the episode? They make some interesting points about that line of thinking.
 
Sorry... I don't see how that would be silly.

If Canada ends up responsible for paying reparations for wrongs that were committed before 1867 - or arguably even up to 1931 - then Britain played a role as well. What would be wrong with Canada recouping the UK's share of the damages from the UK?

Both of our countries have joint and several liability; that's how it's supposed to work. The wronged party recovers damages from whichever tortfeasor they choose to sue, then it's up to that tortfeasor to sort out what the various shares of those damages ought to be amongst all the responsible parties.

If Canadians choose to pay reparations to assuage their collective guilt as the ultimate benefactors, that's up to them.

There is no civil law analogy about how it is 'supposed to work' as there is no precedent. Could just as easily argue that Canada acquired the entire liability on independence like in a corporate takeover.

It's silly though because the idea of suing countries for what happened centuries ago is incoherent. Just about everyone could sue someone else for some reason or another as all surviving groups are the descendants of conquerors, oppressors and slavers.

Would it be silly for Britain to demand reparations from Italy, Germany, France, Denmark, Norway and Sweden as the successor states of their former colonisers?
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
I tried to give some semblance of an answer to the trickiness question in post #16 or something like that. In brief, I argued that reparations probably aren't in the form of just giving people money or land; but in removing systemic barriers to success that are borne of longstanding poverty and systemic biases and things like that. Things that might let us look at the demographics of wealth distribution in the future and see longer term trends moving away from huge disparity.
That gets tricky as well, because there are many underserved and underprivileged groups (and not just racial). How do we consider it when state hospitals emptied out and ensured a life of being in-and-out of jail and prison for those more profoundly mentally ill who suddenly found themselves on the street, or a life without much needed constant medical intervention and supervision? California is set to give money payments to those forcefully sterilized by the state, but what does that really fix, solve, or apologize for?
We seem to be a society that truly believes money makes everything better.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
Would it be silly for Britain to demand reparations from Italy, Germany, France, Denmark, Norway and Sweden as the successor states of their former colonisers?
Yup. Much the world would have claims against England, including Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Isle of Man, Cornwall and Northern Ireland especially complicates things. But that goes centuries ago and would risks overlooking the Troubles amd the history and identities that lead up to that.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
If Canadians choose to pay reparations to assuage their collective guilt as the ultimate benefactors, that's up to them.

There is no civil law analogy about how it is 'supposed to work' as there is no precedent.
Not true. For instance: Kenyan victims of colonial torture win right to sue UK | CNN

Could just as easily argue that Canada acquired the entire liability on independence like in a corporate takeover.
Sure... let's let the UK make that argument in court.

It's silly though because the idea of suing countries for what happened centuries ago is incoherent.
Why would that be incoherent? Certainly the span of time doesn't make it easy to gather evidence, but if wrongdoing can be established and an ill-gotten asset still exists, why shouldn't this be acted on?

Just about everyone could sue someone else for some reason or another as all surviving groups are the descendants of conquerors, oppressors and slavers.
But we're talking specifically about issues of property.

If someone - e.g. a First Nations group - never consented to transfer of land, why shouldn't they be entitled to get that land back?

If someone - e.g. an enslaved person - did work on a land to improve a property that they were never compensated for, why wouldn't they be entitled to a lien on that property just like any other worker who improves a property and isn't paid?

Would it be silly for Britain to demand reparations from Italy, Germany, France, Denmark, Norway and Sweden as the successor states of their former colonisers?
I think the key word in your question is "successor state." Is the government of Germany the same entity that went to war with the Allies in WWII? The question is murky.

OTOH, the UK has had one continuous government without interruption since 1688 (or earlier, depending on one's point of view). Canada didn't exist as a state until 1867. From the Seven Years' War until then, the only entity that had ultimate oversight for most of what's now Canada from the Seven Years' War to Confederation was the UK. Even after 1867, the British government that ratified every Canadian law passed - including the laws that victimized First Nations people - right up until the Statute of Westminster is the same British government that exists today.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Nope, I only read the article they linked to.

What did they say?
They raised the question - without answering it - whether this idea that colonizers have taken better care of stolen property better than the original owners would have is paternalistic and insulting.
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
What about the norms of the time?

Columbus was arrested and brought back to Spain in chains for his violence against the natives of Hispaniola. It's historical revisionism to say that even harsher actions by the Conquistadors wasn't condemned in its own time.
Countries regularly made wars of conquest against each other for terretory and booty in those times. Incans, Mayans, Amerinduan tribes were all doing this.
 
Top