system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: I don't think reparations for slavery (in the US) would be fair or actually solve anything

First, let me state that I believe that there is still far too much racism in the US, and that slavery is still not recognized as the injustice that it actually was. That being said, I strongly disagree with the idea that reparations should be paid as a result of slavery. I am very interested in hearing opposing arguments though since most people in my circle either agree with me or refuse to talk about it.

If someone were to "pay" reparations, I view it as money being taken from their bank account by the government, said cash being transferred to a central fund, and then all of the combined payments being distributed to people receiving reparations. There are many variations to this process, but as I see it, it is primarily the transfer of wealth from one individual to another. There are many situations where one person pays another some amount of money based on how they've wronged the other person, such as a class-action lawsuit, civil lawsuit, etc...

However, in each case the individual paying the sum of money is the exact person responsible for the wrongdoing. If someone ran a person over with their car, they would be rightfully charged for their action. However, if their great grandfather ran someone else's great grandfather over with their car, it wouldn't make sense to put them on trial. So if no one living today participated directly in the economy that functioned from slavery, to me it wouldn't make sense to charge reparations based on that argument.

I have heard the argument that much of the US's wealth has been produced from injustice, and that people should pay reparations since they benefited from that unjust wealth. But if someone inherits wealth from their grandparents for example, and then it is later found out that their grandparents gained the wealth unethically, they still wouldn't be tried for that. Now they would have a legal and moral obligation to right the wrongs that their grandparents did, just like the US still needs to address the issues resulting from slavery, but I don't see that as a legal grounds for reparations either.

My final argument would be that reparations, if implemented, would not do much to reduce inequality in the US. Wealth inequality is at an all-time high, and many valid arguments can be made that measures should be taken to reduce this. But does it make logical sense to assume someones wealth or economic status based on race? Rather than transferring wealth based on genetic and social inheritance, wouldn't make more sense to approach the issue from a purely economic standpoint? Another argument is that reparations are needed to address racial economic inequality specifically. While they do address this issue, couldn't one rightfully argue that there are may facets to one's economic situation, and that not all of them are the result of history? I feel like the somewhat valid perception of reparations as an economically and socially unbalanced practice would actually be harmful to equality over time.

Again, not trying to come across as biased or misinformed, but I am genuinely curious about the augments for reparations and nobody I know wants to talk about it.
gpt
Reparations were originally planned in a far more direct form. Land was taken from the rebellious southeners and given directly to newly freed slaves so that every freed slave received 40 acres and a mule. Many slaves did, in fact, get their 40 acres, before the government changed their mind, kicked the slaves off the property, and let the white owners come back in.

For some people, reparations are owed based on the fact the government said it was going to do it and started doing it but decided not to in order to cater to the white landowners who rebelled in the first place.